Salon: On Spending Conservatives are Quite Conflicted

[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 ins utions ( 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://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...032100104.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 me

Yet, when posters who aren't obviously liberal meatheads put down your cherished GOP, you fly to their defense. How gallant.

[EVAY]

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...032100104.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.