Salon: On Spending Conservatives are Quite Conflicted

[Winehole23]

On spending, conservatives are quite conflicted (http://www.salon.com/news/the_numerologist/2010/02/24/conflicted_conservatives/index.html)

The government spends too much! Except when it comes to schools and infrastructure and Social Security and ...




http://www.themonkeycage.org/conflictedconservatives%20revised-thumb.png (http://www.themonkeycage.org/conflictedconservatives%20revised.png)

Conservatives agree that the government spends too much. But ask them what to cut ...


At last week’s Conservative Political Action Conference, Minnesota Gov. Tim Pawlenty called on the attendees to imitate the wife of Tiger Woods: "We should take a page out of her playbook and take a nine iron and smash the window out of big government in this country."


But there’s a problem for Pawlenty and the activists who cheered him: Rank-and-file conservatives actually like big government.


In 2008, the American National Election Study (http://%20http//www.electionstudies.org/) asked a national sample whether federal spending on 12 different programs should be increased, decreased or kept about the same.


As the graph above illustrates, the respondents who identified themselves as "conservative" or "extremely conservative" had little appetite for specific spending cuts.


Very few conservatives said they favored reducing (or cutting out altogether) spending on any program. About 50% of conservatives want to cut or eliminate foreign aid and 35% feel similarly about welfare. The most popular is highways; only 6 percent want to cut spending there. Amazingly, the survey found that, on average, 54 percent of them actually wanted to increase spending.


Political scientist James Stimson (http://www.unc.edu/%7Ejstimson/) has suggested that a fifth of the country consists of what he calls "conflicted conservatives," those who might respond positively to a broad appeal like Pawlenty’s, but not once specific windows start getting smashed.


At CPAC, Glenn Beck turned to 12-step lingo: "Hello, my name is the Republican Party and I have a problem! I’m addicted to spending and big government." But why blame the GOP? After all, the party is being enabled by its own base.

[symple19]

LOL, what the hell is a conservative anymore??? This doesn't surprise me at all.

The line continues to blur...

[Thompson]

"When the people find they can vote themselves money, that will herald the end of the republic"

-Benjamin Franklin

Before we collapse, we will have to abandon or sharply reduce a lot of programs, some of which we may like. It has to be done though, suck it up.

[symple19]

The below is from 02' --- Half of these agencies are worthless, IMO. There are probably many thousands more (employees) by this point. In my mind, it's like a balloon that keeps getting filled with more and more air, until it pops. I'll bold some that I think should be gone.


MARCH 2002

TOTAL, ALL AGENCIES 2,690,238

LEGISLATIVE BRANCH 30,532

CONGRESS 17,344

U.S. SENATE 6,511
HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES SUMMARY 10,833
COMMISSION ON SECURITY AND COOPERATION IN EUROPE 16
ARCHITECT OF THE CAPITOL 1,987
BOTANIC GARDEN 43
COMMISSION ON AFFORDABLE HOUSING AND HEALTH FACILITY NEEDS
FOR SENIORS IN THE 21ST CENTURY 19
U.S. COMMISSION ON INTERNATIONAL RELIGIOUS FREEDOM 23
COMMISSION ON OCEAN POLICY 19 rofl
CONGRESSIONAL BUDGET OFFICE 227
GENERAL ACCOUNTING OFFICE 3,190
GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE 2,977
JOHN C. STENNIS CENTER FOR PUBLIC DEVELOPMENT 7
LIBRARY OF CONGRESS 4,251
MEDICARE PAYMENT ADVISORY COMMISSION 49
MILLENNIAL HOUSING COMMISSION 18 huh?
OFFICE OF COMPLIANCE 18
UNITED STATES-CHINA SECURITY REVIEW COMMISSION 28
U.S. COURT OF VETERANS APPEALS 82
U.S. TAX COURT 234

JUDICIAL BRANCH 33,800
U.S. SUPREME COURT 390
U.S. COURTS 33,410

EXECUTIVE BRANCH 2,625,906
EXECUTIVE OFFICE OF THE PRESIDENT 1,682
WHITE HOUSE OFFICE 397
OFFICE OF THE VICE PRESIDENT 19
OFFICE OF MANAGEMENT AND BUDGET 511
OFFICE OF ADMINISTRATION 197
COUNCIL OF ECONOMIC ADVISERS 32
COUNCIL ON ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY/OFFICE OF
ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY 20
OFFICE OF POLICY DEVELOPMENT 35
EXECUTIVE RESIDENCE AT THE WHITE HOUSE 91
NATIONAL SECURITY COUNCIL 47
OFFICE OF NATIONAL DRUG CONTROL POLICY 110
OFFICE OF SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY POLICY 26
OFFICE OF THE U.S. TRADE REPRESENTATTIVE 197
EXECUTIVE DEPARTMENTS 1,604,079
DEPARTMENT OF STATE 28,719
DEPARTMENT OF THE TREASURY 168,811
DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE 667,987
DEFENSE, MILITARY FUNCTION TOTAL 643,591
DEFENSE, CIVIL FUNCTION TOTAL 24,396
DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY 230,074
DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY, MILITARY FUNCTION TOTAL 205,679
DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY, CIVIL FUNCTION TOTAL 24,395
CORP OF ENGINEERS 24,377
CEMETERIAL EXPENSES 18
DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY 183,465
DEPARTMENT OF THE AIR FORCE 151,664
DEFENSE LOGISTICS AGENCY 23,551
OTHER DEFENSE ACTIVITIES (EXCLUDING DEFENSE LOGISTICS
AGENCY) 79,233
DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE 129,319
DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR 70,119
DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE 98,320
DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE 38,359
DEPARTMENT OF LABOR 16,319
DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES 65,204
DEPARTMENT OF HOUSING AND URBAN DEVELOPMENT 10,052
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 67,541
DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY 15,912
DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION 4,670
DEPARTMENT OF VETERANS AFFAIRS 222,747
INDEPENDENT AGENCIES 1,020,145 *
ADVISORY COUNCIL ON HISTORIC PRESERVATION 42
AFRICAN DEVELOPMENT FOUNDATION 24
AMERICAN BATTLE MONUMENTS COMMISSION 367
APPALACHIAN REGIONAL COMMISSION 10
ARCHITECTURAL AND TRANSPORTATION BARRIERS COMPLIANCE
BOARD 29
ARMED FORCES RETIREMENT HOME 736
ARMED FORCES RETIREMENT HOME - GULFPORT 152
ARMED FORCES RETIREMENT HOME - WASHINGTON 584
ARCTIC RESEARCH COMMISSION 13
BARRY GOLDWATER SCHOLARSHIP AND EXCELLENCE IN EDUCATION
FOUNDATION 11
FEDERAL RESERVE BOARD OF GOVERNORS 1,693!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
CHEMICAL SAFETY AND HAZARD INVESTIGATION BOARD 29
CHRISTOPHER COLUMBUS FELLOWSHIP FOUNDATION 14
COMMISSION OF FINE ARTS 6
COMMISSION ON CIVIL RIGHTS 76
COMMITTEE FOR PURCHASE FROM PEOPLE WHO ARE BLIND OR
SEVERELY DISABLED 37
COMMODITY FUTURES TRADING COMMISSION 516
CONSUMER PRODUCT SAFETY COMMISSION 466
CORPORATION FOR NATIONAL AND COMMUNITY SERVICE 600
COURT SERVICES AND OFFENDER SUPERVISION AGENCY FOR THE
DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA 903
DEFENSE NUCLEAR FACILITIES SAFETY BOARD 94
DELTA REGIONAL AUTHORITY B/ 2
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY 17,943
EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION 2,836
EXPORT-IMPORT BANK OF THE UNITED STATES 410
FARM CREDIT ADMINISTRATION 266
FARM CREDIT SYSTEM INSURANCE CORPORATION 9
FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION 2,017
FEDERAL DEPOSIT INSURANCE CORPORATION 6,222
FEDERAL ELECTION COMMISSION 354
FEDERAL EMERGENCY MANAGEMENT AGENCY 5,408
FEDERAL FINANCIAL INSTITUTIONS EXAMINATION COUNCIL 7
FEDERAL HOUSING FINANCE BOARD 112
FEDERAL LABOR RELATIONS AUTHORITY 196
FEDERAL MARITIME COMMISSION 127
FEDERAL MEDIATION AND CONCILIATION SERVICE 289
FEDERAL MINE SAFETY AND HEALTH REVIEW COMMISSION 40
FEDERAL RETIREMENT THRIFT INVESTMENT BOARD 107
FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION 1,071
GENERAL SERVICES ADMINISTRATION 14,079
HARRY S. TRUMAN SCHOLARSHIP FOUNDATION 4
U.S. HOLOCAUST MEMORIAL MUSEUM 226
INTER-AMERICAN FOUNDATION 45
INTERNATIONAL BOUNDARY AND WATER COMMISSION: UNITED
STATES AND MEXICO 271
INTERNATIONAL BOUNDARY COMMISSION: UNITED STATES AND
CANADA 5
INTERNATIONAL JOINT COMMISSION: UNITED STATES AND CANADA 23
U.S. INTERNATIONAL TRADE COMMISSION 379
JAMES MADISON MEMORIAL FELLOWSHIP FOUNDATION 6
JAPAN-UNITED STATES FRIENDSHIP COMMISSION 13
MARINE MAMMAL COMMISSION 21
MERIT SYSTEMS PROTECTION BOARD 224
MORRIS K. UDALL SCHOLARSHIP AND EXCELLENCE IN NATIONAL
ENVIRONMENTAL POLICY FOUNDATION 30
NATIONAL ARCHIVES AND RECORDS ADMINISTRATION 3,063
NATIONAL AERONAUTICS AND SPACE ADMINISTRATION 18,821
NATIONAL CAPITAL PLANNING COMMISSION 63
NATIONAL COMMISSION ON LIBRARIES AND INFORMATION SCIENCE 7
NATIONAL COUNCIL ON DISABILITY 24
NATIONAL CREDIT UNION ADMINISTRATION 975
NATIONAL EDUCATION GOALS PANEL 1
NATIONAL FOUNDATION ON THE ARTS AND THE HUMANITIES 356
NATIONAL ENDOWMENT FOR THE ARTS 150
NATIONAL ENDOWMENT FOR THE HUMANITIES 163
INSTITUTE OF MUSEUM AND LIBRARY SERVICES 43
NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD 2,020
NATIONAL MEDIATION BOARD 48
NATIONAL SCIENCE FOUNDATION 1,291
NATIONAL TRANSPORTATION SAFETY BOARD 427
NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION 2,889
NUCLEAR WASTE TECHNICAL REVIEW BOARD 26
OCCUPATIONAL SAFETY AND HEALTH REVIEW COMMISSION 64
OFFICE OF NAVAJO AND HOPI INDIAN RELOCATION 58
OFFICE OF GOVERNMENT ETHICS 74 *
OFFICE OF PERSONNEL MANAGEMENT 3,328
OFFICE OF SPECIAL COUNSEL 112
OVERSEAS PRIVATE INVESTMENT CORPORATION 215
PANAMA CANAL COMMISSION 5
PEACE CORPS 1,018
PENSION BENEFIT GUARANTY CORPORATION 766
POSTAL RATE COMMISSION 49
PRESIDIO TRUST 463
RAILROAD RETIREMENT BOARD 1,160
SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION 3,085
SELECTIVE SERVICE SYSTEM 183 lol
SMALL BUSINESS ADMINISTRATION 3,969
SMITHSONIAN INSTITUTION 4,981
NATIONAL GALLERY OF ART 795
SMITHSONIAN INSTITUTION (EXCEPT UNITS ADMINISTERED UNDER
SEPARATE BOARDS OF TRUSTEES) 4,099
WOODROW WILSON INTERNATIONAL CENTER FOR SCHOLARS 40
JOHN F. KENNEDY CENTER FOR THE PERFORMING ARTS 47
SOCIAL SECURITY ADMINISTRATION 64,350
TENNESSEE VALLEY AUTHORITY 13,488
TRADE AND DEVELOPMENT AGENCY 42
BROADCASTING BOARD OF GOVERNORS 2,398
AGENCY FOR INTERNATIONAL DEVELOPMENT 2,364
U.S. POSTAL SERVICE 829,538 please!
UTAH RECLAMATION MITIGATION AND CONSERVATION COMMISSION 16

Let's start with those. I didn't see the DEA in there, but they should go too. IRS? Gone. (flat tax, or something similar that would cut deeply into that giant, bloated, Bureaucracy)

probably a third of the people above do nothing other than collect a paycheck.

[Thompson]

Remember when Obama was pushing for his health care package a few months back and he mistakenly used the example of the success FedEx (private company) is having while the U.S. post office (government run) is failing?

And this is an argument for government becoming more involved/taking control of the health care industry? :rollin

[SouthernFried]

I could cut 20% of the previous budget for 10 yrs straight. Probably for 15 yrs.

Funny how "Salon" never seems to find guys like me.

Mebbe they'd notice me if I tried that new aux de metro-sexual water instead of wd40, eh?

[Marcus Bryant]

Keap yer dadgum socialist commie hands off mah Medicare and Social Security.

Anyways, this article confirms that American politics is chiefly delineated by divergent views on social issues.

[EVAY]

Keap yer dadgum socialist commie hands off mah Medicare and Social Security.

Anyways, this article confirms that American politics is chiefly delineated by divergent views on social issues.

Marcus! Thank god you're back! You have been missed.

[angrydude]

just because we all want to put a bullet through our heads doesn't make it a good thing.

Pretty soon we'll have no choice anyway. You can't ignore economic forces forever. either you willingly comply or you'll be forced to comply through poverty.

[EVAY]

On spending, conservatives are quite conflicted (http://www.salon.com/news/the_numerologist/2010/02/24/conflicted_conservatives/index.html)

The government spends too much! Except when it comes to schools and infrastructure and Social Security and ...




http://www.themonkeycage.org/conflictedconservatives%20revised-thumb.png (http://www.themonkeycage.org/conflictedconservatives%20revised.png)

Conservatives agree that the government spends too much. But ask them what to cut ...


At last week’s Conservative Political Action Conference, Minnesota Gov. Tim Pawlenty called on the attendees to imitate the wife of Tiger Woods: "We should take a page out of her playbook and take a nine iron and smash the window out of big government in this country."


But there’s a problem for Pawlenty and the activists who cheered him: Rank-and-file conservatives actually like big government.


In 2008, the American National Election Study (http://%20http//www.electionstudies.org/) asked a national sample whether federal spending on 12 different programs should be increased, decreased or kept about the same.


As the graph above illustrates, the respondents who identified themselves as "conservative" or "extremely conservative" had little appetite for specific spending cuts.


Very few conservatives said they favored reducing (or cutting out altogether) spending on any program. About 50% of conservatives want to cut or eliminate foreign aid and 35% feel similarly about welfare. The most popular is highways; only 6 percent want to cut spending there. Amazingly, the survey found that, on average, 54 percent of them actually wanted to increase spending.


Political scientist James Stimson (http://www.unc.edu/%7Ejstimson/) has suggested that a fifth of the country consists of what he calls "conflicted conservatives," those who might respond positively to a broad appeal like Pawlenty’s, but not once specific windows start getting smashed.


At CPAC, Glenn Beck turned to 12-step lingo: "Hello, my name is the Republican Party and I have a problem! I’m addicted to spending and big government." But why blame the GOP? After all, the party is being enabled by its own base.

I think this is what was really brought to light by the years of Republican rule of both houses of congress and the presidency, when social programs as well as defense spending all were increased while taxes were cut, leading to a doubling of the national debt by "conservatives".

In fact, what passes for Republicanism today is a desire to increase the role of religion in social and governmental institutions ( ala 'faith-based initiatives), which actually increases the intervention of governnment in people's lives, couple with a desire to increase the funding for socially conservative programs (another increase in the size of government), along with tax cuts for certain people, and not for others.

The Republican Party has no idea who they are anymore. Having a Democrat in the White House helps them because they get to say who they are NOT.
That's about the size of it now.

[Wild Cobra]

The problem is that it is next to impossible to reduce or cut a program once it is implemented. Sure, it could be done, but the controversy makes it a "third rail." Weather true or false, politicians have a hard time surviving when they want to reduce or cut any program that some people rely on. The solution is not to create new programs, without cutting others.

Don't expect many conservative to say what they really believe when it will reduce their popularity. They are people too, flaws included.

[SouthernFried]

How about electing people who really want to cut spending, rather than expecting people who are responsible for the spending to do it?

[Winehole23]

Very hard to tell who that is now.

[Winehole23]

Which GOP majorities decreased the size of government again?

[Winehole23]

Post WWII, right?

[spursncowboys]

With conservatives having no power in any of the three branches of our nat govt right now, why does this story matter? Why does this poll matter?
conservatives fight clinton for lower costing bills and now everyone remembers clinton as some kind of fiscal conservative. Does anyone really believe the dems would have had lower costing bills in the Bush era? They voted for the wars too. Ab - surd

[Wild Cobra]

Which GOP majorities decreased the size of government again?
How dare you mix the terms GOP and conservative? The conservatives are a minority within the GOP.

[Marcus Bryant]

The problem is that it is next to impossible to reduce or cut a program once it is implemented.

Bullshit. That's an excuse "conservative" politicians often make.

[Marcus Bryant]

So many are "conservatives" but so few want to cut spending. Fewer still want to reduce the warfare state the evil dirty commie Progressives established in these here United States. Fucking tools.

[boutons_deux]

This Repug conflict is amusing. It's the culmination of their "cut taxes and spend" "policy".

Now that Repugs' tax cuts of $Ts and their $Ts for bullshit wars have collided, the Repugs are being confronted with just exactly what $T parts of govt they want to eliminate.

And guess what? The Repugs fall silent and/or confused and/or confusing or all of the above.

Fucking losers, REPUGS BAD FOR AMERICA.

They simply don't want to govern, NO sense of public service, they only want to play smash-mouth, dishonest politics only for the power.

[SouthernFried]

This Repug conflict is amusing. It's the culmination of their "cut taxes and spend" "policy".

Now that Repugs' tax cuts of $Ts and their $Ts for bullshit wars have collided, the Repugs are being confronted with just exactly what $T parts of govt they want to eliminate.

And guess what? The Repugs fall silent and/or confused and/or confusing or all of the above.

Fucking losers, REPUGS BAD FOR AMERICA.

They simply don't want to govern, NO sense of public service, they only want to play smash-mouth, dishonest politics only for the power.

I don't care what anyone says (even me)...Boutons, you are a funny guy.

Keep it up.

Peace, love, etc..etc..

[EVAY]

With conservatives having no power in any of the three branches of our nat govt right now, why does this story matter? Why does this poll matter?
conservatives fight clinton for lower costing bills and now everyone remembers clinton as some kind of fiscal conservative. Does anyone really believe the dems would have had lower costing bills in the Bush era? They voted for the wars too. Ab - surd

It matters because the Republicans are saying they would be so different than the current democrats. But, in fact, when they had the chance to make a difference, all they did was make a mess.

"Conservatives fight Clinton for lower costing bills and now everyone remembers Clinton as some kind of fiscal conservative." The point here is that Clinton went along with cost cutting, he went along with a reform of welfare, and he and Newt GOT THINGS DONE!!

Under Bush, conservatives were in charge of everything and all they did was expand social programs, start and run two wars, and cut taxes at the same time. None of the Republican 'conservatives' challenged any of that, and the national debt doubled under Republican Conservatism. Not a single conservative in congress voted against the repeated budgets that simply increased the deficits and increased the national debt.

The reason that it matters is that there is recent hisatory saying that Republicans are no more fiscally conservative than democrats when they have the chance to be, so why should we believe them? Why should we vote for them in November when they are only interested in deficits when there is a democrat in the White House?

Democrats have truth in advertising. They spend money. It is what they do.

Republicans claim they don't. But they do. They want our votes without having earned them. That's why it counts.

[Oh, Gee!!]

so "conservatives" is a fringe groupie according to WC? good to know.

[Wild Cobra]

It matters because the Republicans are saying they would be so different than the current democrats. But, in fact, when they had the chance to make a difference, all they did was make a mess.

As a party, you are right. They do the same bullshit democrats do, but at just a slower pace. I'm sure some here can recall that during the 2008 election season, I didn't mind shunning McCain and other RINO's. I talked about not voting for the republican in my state. I was chastised by others here, saying the democrats would then win. My answer was essentially, "Fine. Let the people see just how much worse the democrats are than the republicans." and that I would not vote for a RINO. It's like boiling a frog. Put him in hot water, he will try to jump out. That's how the majority of the public is now responding to the democrats. The republicans are taking us down the same authoritarian/socialist path. Just slower. Like putting the frog in cool water, and heating it up slowly.

The results are the same. The frog gets killed. At least the democrats didn't boil the water quick enough because they tried too much at once, and even the liberals with some sanity jumped out.

[Wild Cobra]

Bullshit. That's an excuse "conservative" politicians often make.
Which ones? What issues? Can you show me a roll call for those conservative republicans making the wrong choice?

There are too many moderate and liberal republicans for the republicans to have a conservative platform, and remain true to it. The republican party needs a serious purging if they want my support.

[Marcus Bryant]

I'll provide that roll call when you provide a comprehensive list of liberal, moderate, and conservative Republican members of the House and Senate, which identifies each member with the label you would apply to them.

[Wild Cobra]

I'll provide that roll call when you provide a comprehensive list of liberal, moderate, and conservative Republican members of the House and Senate, which identifies each member with the label you would apply to them.
LOL...

You expect me to identify 219 members first?

What an obvious way to say you're not up to the task of identifying a bad record of a single conservative.

[Marcus Bryant]

Then identify the majority who are non-true conservatives.

That was your assertion, after all.

[Wild Cobra]

Then identify the majority who are non-true conservatives.

That was your assertion, after all.
I agree the GOP is primarily not belolden to conservative values. You were confusing conservatives and republicans. I simply pointed out you were wrong.

If you aren't going to identify a conservative who failed his/her values, then I'm done with you. Please don't make statements that apply to the GOP, and impugn conservatives with them unless you are willing to put some facts on the table.

[Marcus Bryant]

If a majority of GOPers don't fit your definition of a conservative, it shouldn't be that difficult for you to put together a list.

[ChumpDumper]

I agree the GOP is primarily not belolden to conservative values. You were confusing conservatives and republicans. I simply pointed out you were wrong.

If you aren't going to identify a conservative who failed his/her values, then I'm done with you. Please don't make statements that apply to the GOP, and impugn conservatives with them unless you are willing to put some facts on the table.What facts have you put on the table?

Hypocrite.

[Wild Cobra]

If a majority of GOPers don't fit your definition of a conservative, it shouldn't be that difficult for you to put together a list.
LOL..

Thing is, I don't bother with any of them. The only members of congress I keep track of are those who represent me. All three are democrats now, and my vote helped oust the RINO Gordon Smith.

[mogrovejo]

I think this is what was really brought to light by the years of Republican rule of both houses of congress and the presidency, when social programs as well as defense spending all were increased while taxes were cut, leading to a doubling of the national debt by "conservatives".

In fact, what passes for Republicanism today is a desire to increase the role of religion in social and governmental institutions ( ala 'faith-based initiatives), which actually increases the intervention of governnment in people's lives, couple with a desire to increase the funding for socially conservative programs (another increase in the size of government), along with tax cuts for certain people, and not for others.

The Republican Party has no idea who they are anymore. Having a Democrat in the White House helps them because they get to say who they are NOT.
That's about the size of it now.

Gold medal for lazy generalization.

[mogrovejo]

It matters because the Republicans are saying they would be so different than the current democrats. But, in fact, when they had the chance to make a difference, all they did was make a mess.

"Conservatives fight Clinton for lower costing bills and now everyone remembers Clinton as some kind of fiscal conservative." The point here is that Clinton went along with cost cutting, he went along with a reform of welfare, and he and Newt GOT THINGS DONE!!

Under Bush, conservatives were in charge of everything and all they did was expand social programs, start and run two wars, and cut taxes at the same time. None of the Republican 'conservatives' challenged any of that, and the national debt doubled under Republican Conservatism. Not a single conservative in congress voted against the repeated budgets that simply increased the deficits and increased the national debt.

The reason that it matters is that there is recent hisatory saying that Republicans are no more fiscally conservative than democrats when they have the chance to be, so why should we believe them? Why should we vote for them in November when they are only interested in deficits when there is a democrat in the White House?

Democrats have truth in advertising. They spend money. It is what they do.

Republicans claim they don't. But they do. They want our votes without having earned them. That's why it counts.

There's a matter of degree that you seem to be ignoring. Pretending that the deficit created by Obama and the democrats is on the same level of the Bush deficits is laughable.

Btw, are you sure not a single conservative voted against Bush budgets? We have to know who to take seriously here.

[Winehole23]

"We?"

[Winehole23]

What makes you think you're taken seriously around here? You're a drive by partisan hack...

[EVAY]

There's a matter of degree that you seem to be ignoring. Pretending that the deficit created by Obama and the democrats is on the same level of the Bush deficits is laughable.

Btw, are you sure not a single conservative voted against Bush budgets? We have to know who to take seriously here.

Let's see, the projected budget deficit left by the Bush Administration was listed at $1.2 trillion. The actual budget put forward by the first year of the Obama administration was $1.6 trillion. Real, but hardly laughable.

Did you forget whose administration put forth the financial bailouts?

Oh, and lest we forget, the Bush administration's budgets never included the costs of the two wars we were paying for...but increased the national debt just the same. Obama insisted on including the cost of the wars in the budget, which forces us to know how much they are costing us, something the Republican administrations never seemed to feel they needed to remind us about.

[EVAY]

Gold medal for lazy generalization.

I wonder which bothers you more: The ease with which Republican hypocrisy is exposed or the accuracy of the statements?

[mogrovejo]

I wonder which bothers you more: The ease with which Republican hypocrisy is exposed or the accuracy of the statements?

I've criticized the Republican spending habits and the Bush administration here multiple times. You're usual game has no use with me. Ooops. It seems you have to do more than "ah, republicans did it too, I'd actually vote for them but they are all the same".

What bothers me is the lazy generalization. Capisce?

Can you backup your statements about «not a single conservative voting against Bush budgets" or not? It's a simple question. A "Yes" or "NO" will suffice as an answer for now.

[mogrovejo]

http://media3.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/graphic/2009/03/21/GR2009032100104.gif

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/graphic/2009/03/21/GR2009032100104.html

Projected Deficit

In the first independent analysis, the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office concluded that President Obama's budget would rack up massive deficits even

[Winehole23]

I've criticized the Republican spending habits and the Bush administration here multiple times. You're usual game can't fly here with meYet, when posters who aren't obviously liberal meatheads put down your cherished GOP, you fly to their defense. How gallant.

[EVAY]

http://media3.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/graphic/2009/03/21/GR2009032100104.gif

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/graphic/2009/03/21/GR2009032100104.html

Projected Deficit

In the first independent analysis, the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office concluded that President Obama's budget would rack up massive deficits even

Not challenging the assertion that Obama's deficit's are outrageous, just challenging your assertion that they would have been so much smaller under the Bush Administration's plans. Remember, the financial bailouts were in the Bush administration's last budget epectation, but the auto bailouts weren't because he just kicked that can down the road.

The deficit numbers would have been monstrous regardless of who was in office because the funds would have been there for the auto bailout and the second aig bailout and the wars and...while the $787 billion wouldn't have been there in stimulus deficit it would have been there in tax cut deficits...it is still deficits....that is why republicans have no credibility on fiscal responsibility issues when they are in charge of fiscal responsibility!!!

[mogrovejo]

Not challenging the assertion that Obama's deficit's are outrageous, just challenging your assertion that they would have been so much smaller under the Bush Administration's plans.

I didn't say that. I simply stated a fact. If you're not going to deny it, that's fine.



Remember, the financial bailouts were in the Bush administration's last budget epectation, but the auto bailouts weren't because he just kicked that can down the road.

The deficit numbers would have been monstrous regardless of who was in office because the funds would have been there for the auto bailout and the second aig bailout and the wars and...while the $787 billion wouldn't have been there in stimulus deficit it would have been there in tax cut deficits...it is still deficits....that is why republicans have no credibility on fiscal responsibility issues when they are in charge of fiscal responsibility!!!

Who's excusing the bail-outs? I'm one of the few people here who was and is opposed to the bail-outs.

Will you answer my question or not? I'm not sure if I want to read through your long posts without being sure you're reliable as a poster here.

[Winehole23]

mogrovejo, drive by poster and partisan hitman, demands answers to his factual sidebar on EVAY's trivially oversold point. Incisive.

[EVAY]

I didn't say that. I simply stated a fact. If you're not going to deny it, that's fine.




Who's excusing the bail-outs? I'm one of the few people here who was and is opposed to the bail-outs.

Will you answer my question or not? I'm not sure if I want to read through your long posts without being sure you're reliable as a poster here.

Which question was that? If it was the "Are you sure no conservative EVER voted against a bush budget, no, I don't plan on answering that because it doesn't deserve answering because it is is gamey.

Sorry you tire of reading. Do your lips get tired?

[mogrovejo]

Which question was that? If it was the "Are you sure no conservative EVER voted against a bush budget, no, I don't plan on answering that because it doesn't deserve answering because it is is gamey.

Sorry you tire of reading. Do your lips get tired?

My question is about a statement of yours that I will quote:


Not a single conservative in congress voted against the repeated budgets that simply increased the deficits and increased the national debt.

I want to know if you're sure about this quote of yours (I'm assuming you're just referring to the Bush budgets). This is certainly not gamey, you're the one who actually authored the statement.