Sponsor Message:
Non Aviation Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
Bush's Spending NOT A Conservative Value...  
User currently offlineTedTAce From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Posted (9 years 1 month 1 week 1 day 15 hours ago) and read 1118 times:

Somebody told me this, and it SEEMS true (though even I can't believe it)
I tried to raise the question on another thread, but got no answer.

The statment made to me was that our current POTUS, W.; has NEVER vetoed or refused to sign ANY spending bills.

My question is if this is true; how can ANY TRUE dyed in the wool conservative support this man who spends money on an order to make the pork barrell Democrats of pre Gingrich days envious?

36 replies: All unread, showing first 25:
 
User currently offlinePope From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 1, posted (9 years 1 month 1 week 1 day 15 hours ago) and read 1113 times:

I don't believe Bush has yet to veto any bill of any nature submitted to him.

User currently offlineSlider From United States of America, joined Feb 2004, 6858 posts, RR: 34
Reply 2, posted (9 years 1 month 1 week 1 day 15 hours ago) and read 1101 times:

He's not a conservative whatsoever.

Republican lemmings were fleeced (twice) and he continues to carry on spending in a manner that makes Democrats blush.

The sooner America realizes that we aren't in a Republic anymore but an oligarchy, the better off we'll be.

Time to take out the trash, on both sides of the aisle.


User currently offlineJaysit From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 3, posted (9 years 1 month 1 week 1 day 14 hours ago) and read 1093 times:

Tom Friedman's Article says it all, where he refers to the sage words of a Singaporean journalist:

http://www.nytimes.com/2005/09/14/op...dman.html?incamp=article_popular_2

Quote:

Janadas Devan, a Straits Times columnist, tried to explain to his Asian readers how the U.S. is changing. "Today's conservatives," he wrote, "differ in one crucial aspect from yesterday's conservatives: the latter believed in small government, but believed, too, that a country ought to pay for all the government that it needed.

"The former believe in no government, and therefore conclude that there is no need for a country to pay for even the government that it does have. ... [But] it is not only government that doesn't show up when government is starved of resources and leached of all its meaning. Community doesn't show up either, sacrifice doesn't show up, pulling together doesn't show up, 'we're all in this together' doesn't show up."


How true.
There was a time in the early 90s when I cast my first vote for a Republican in the form of Governor Bill Weld in Massachusetts, that I flirted with registering as a Republican. Alas, I realized that the responsible, noblesse oblige, modern Republican party of yore composed of such stalwarts like the feminist Millicent Fenwick didn't exist any more, and that Gov. Weld was really a dying breed within the GOP.


User currently offlineTedTAce From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 4, posted (9 years 1 month 1 week 1 day 12 hours ago) and read 1074 times:

It's amazing to me that the usual suspects are mystically silent.

User currently offlineB757300 From United States of America, joined Dec 2000, 4114 posts, RR: 23
Reply 5, posted (9 years 1 month 1 week 1 day 12 hours ago) and read 1074 times:

The irony is that you are bashing Bush for not being conservative enough.


"There is no victory at bargain basement prices."
User currently offlineTedTAce From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 6, posted (9 years 1 month 1 week 1 day 11 hours ago) and read 1067 times:

Quoting B757300 (Reply 5):
The irony is that you are bashing Bush for not being conservative enough.

The irony is you have glossed over the fact I have said time and time again that I am a social liberal and a fiscal conservative. Get your facts right, THEN take a shot.


User currently offlineSlider From United States of America, joined Feb 2004, 6858 posts, RR: 34
Reply 7, posted (9 years 1 month 1 week 1 day 11 hours ago) and read 1060 times:

The irony is that the thread and argument is, once again--and predictably at that--set for the usual left VS right, Democrat VS Republican war.

Yawn.


User currently offlineJaysit From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 8, posted (9 years 1 month 1 week 1 day 10 hours ago) and read 1050 times:

Quoting Slider (Reply 7):
The irony is that the thread and argument is, once again--and predictably at that--set for the usual left VS right, Democrat VS Republican war.

Hardly.

It just goes to show how today's GOP is vastly different from the party of fiscal responsibility. At least during the Clinton years, that unholy alliance between Clinton, Greenspan and the Gingrich Congress kept a balanced budget within view, and sought to cut back deficits. Now, ever since the foxes are in charge of the whole hen house, its been widespread financial plunder and carnage. It appears that the only thing important to the GOP is banning gay marriage, banning the teaching of evolution, banning stem cell research, trotting out the flag at the slightest, and hounding those who want to maintain the separation of church and state.

The Dems could - if they wanted to - become the party of fiscal common sense and modern social ideas. After all, scientific modernism and capitalism should go hand in hand. But of course, they'll botch it up being the sissies they are.


User currently offlineB744F From Germany, joined Jan 2006, 0 posts, RR: 0
Reply 9, posted (9 years 1 month 1 week 1 day 10 hours ago) and read 1040 times:

Can someone point out to me when a fiscal conservative President decided to show up? Reagan? Nixon? Bush Sr? Bush Jr? Anyone?

User currently offlineTedTAce From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 10, posted (9 years 1 month 1 week 1 day 10 hours ago) and read 1036 times:

Quoting B744F (Reply 9):
Can someone point out to me when a fiscal conservative President decided to show up? Reagan? Nixon? Bush Sr? Bush Jr? Anyone?

Jr. aside; the others at least made a good pitch at FEIGNING fiscal conservatisim.


User currently onlineMaverickM11 From United States of America, joined Apr 2000, 17660 posts, RR: 46
Reply 11, posted (9 years 1 month 1 week 1 day 10 hours ago) and read 1035 times:

Quoting TedTAce (Thread starter):
Bush's Spending NOT A Conservative Value...

No sh!t!

Quoting TedTAce (Thread starter):
how can ANY TRUE dyed in the wool conservative support this man

The alternative is worse.



E pur si muove -Galileo
User currently offlineMatt D From United States of America, joined Nov 1999, 9502 posts, RR: 47
Reply 12, posted (9 years 1 month 1 week 1 day 10 hours ago) and read 1033 times:

I'm still at a loss as to how one could claim to simultaneously be Socially Liberal AND fiscally conservative. To me, that seems to be a bit of a contradiction. One aspect of being Socially Liberal is to support a Welfare State and/or various Social Programs, which flies in the face of claiming to be fiscally conservative, which preaches that one be self sufficient.

Also, the only difference between the Democrats and the Republicans is that the Dems want a big government in your wallet and a small one in your bedroom. The GOP wants a big government in your bedroom and a small one in your wallet-as long as you have a deep wallet.


User currently offlineTedTAce From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 13, posted (9 years 1 month 1 week 1 day 10 hours ago) and read 1027 times:

Quoting Matt D (Reply 12):
To me, that seems to be a bit of a contradiction

Oh how narrow minded we can be. that's ok, I have a similar problem with gay republicans..

Quoting MaverickM11 (Reply 11):

The alternative is worse.

The alternative is the EXACT same thing, save a SLIGHTLY diferent moral agenda. They are both money/power hungry scubags.


User currently offlineRedngold From United States of America, joined Mar 2000, 6907 posts, RR: 44
Reply 14, posted (9 years 1 month 1 week 1 day 9 hours ago) and read 1015 times:

Quoting Matt D (Reply 12):
Socially Liberal AND fiscally conservative.

Almost nobody is completely conservative or liberal. I'm the opposite of Ted - a social/moral conservative and a fiscal liberal.

Quoting TedTAce (Thread starter):

Ted, I have to agree with you on this. The Republicans and conservatives preach smaller government and fiscal conservatism, but we've enlarged government by adding the Dept. of Homeland Security, increasing international and domestic actions against terrorism, and passing the USA PATRIOT Act which encroaches on the freedoms of association and expression which we have come to enjoy in daily life.



redngold



Up, up and away!
User currently offlineSATX From United States of America, joined Apr 2005, 2840 posts, RR: 7
Reply 15, posted (9 years 1 month 1 week 1 day 9 hours ago) and read 1013 times:

Quoting Slider (Reply 2):
He's not a conservative whatsoever.

He's a social conservative, I'll give him that.

Quoting B757300 (Reply 5):
The irony is that you are bashing Bush for not being conservative enough.

He's pointing out that Bush gets credit for being a fiscal conservative even though he spends money very freely and without sufficient oversight.

Blind loyalty must do more damage to your brain than crack.

Quoting MaverickM11 (Reply 11):
The alternative is worse.

Once again, nothing to backup your claims.

Quoting Matt D (Reply 12):
I'm still at a loss as to how one could claim to simultaneously be Socially Liberal AND fiscally conservative.

For instance: Perhaps you want the government to leave gays alone and keep abortions legal, but you also want to keep the government to stay out of dept and are very skeptical of welfare, including corporate welfare.

That's one example. You need more?



Open Season on Consumer Protections is Just Around the Corner...
User currently onlineMaverickM11 From United States of America, joined Apr 2000, 17660 posts, RR: 46
Reply 16, posted (9 years 1 month 1 week 1 day 8 hours ago) and read 1004 times:

Quoting SATX (Reply 15):
Once again, nothing to backup your claims.

Oh I have tons and tons and tons of backup but if you think I'm going to rehash those battles...feel free to hold your breath.

[Edited 2005-09-15 22:59:11]


E pur si muove -Galileo
User currently offlineTedTAce From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 17, posted (9 years 1 month 1 week 1 day 2 hours ago) and read 969 times:

Quoting TedTAce (Reply 13):
Quoting Matt D (Reply 12):
To me, that seems to be a bit of a contradiction

Oh how narrow minded we can be. that's ok, I have a similar problem with gay republicans..

To further embelish on this.

I believe welfare should be a stop gap measure at best (much like it is now). Give those who genuinely NEED it get it JUST long enough to get themselves going.

I believe that Social Security was a mistake. People got sold on the fantasy they'd live their lives to a certain point then they'd be on Government easy street. This was wrong. you want a good non-working life, save, you fu¢k it up you go to a state sponsored retirement work center where you are made to produce goods consumate with your abilities. I know I'm going to work untill I die and I am VERY happy with that thought. I will always be contributing to society instead of becomming another whiny crybaby looking for the Damn EARLY F-ing Bird special.

I believe that abortion ought to be ENCOURAGED and a tax PENALITY be given those like myself who had children and burdened society with HAVING to create homes, jobs, cars, infrastructure, and everything else they will need when they come of working age. The insanity of our ever expanding population is DUMB.

Does that give you enough insight?


User currently offlineDL021 From United States of America, joined May 2004, 11447 posts, RR: 75
Reply 18, posted (9 years 1 month 1 week 1 day 1 hour ago) and read 963 times:

Quoting Jaysit (Reply 3):
Janadas Devan, a Straits Times columnist, tried to explain to his Asian readers how the U.S. is changing. "Today's conservatives," he wrote, "differ in one crucial aspect from yesterday's conservatives: the latter believed in small government, but believed, too, that a country ought to pay for all the government that it needed.

"The former believe in no government, and therefore conclude that there is no need for a country to pay for even the government that it does have. ... [But] it is not only government that doesn't show up when government is starved of resources and leached of all its meaning. Community doesn't show up either, sacrifice doesn't show up, pulling together doesn't show up, 'we're all in this together' doesn't show up."

Well, there you go again... I usually like Friedman but this time I think he's really off. There is a huge sense of community here and it's showing in the nationwide effort to assist the victims and in the over $100 million already raised in the fundraising by Pres' Clinton and Bush 41.

Quoting TedTAce (Thread starter):
W.; has NEVER vetoed or refused to sign ANY spending bills.

I think you are correct, but then again we have been at war and in a rebuilding effort nationwide both economically and after 9-11. I'd like to have seen the same kind of cost cutting that President Reagan did, but the same people on here now would be screaming about that too.



Is my Pan Am ticket to the moon still good?
User currently offlineTedTAce From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 19, posted (9 years 1 month 1 week 1 day 1 hour ago) and read 959 times:

Quoting DL021 (Reply 18):
but the same people on here now would be screaming about that too.

Namely because of all the money going to the war instead of us in the first place.


User currently offlineTbar220 From United States of America, joined Feb 2000, 7013 posts, RR: 26
Reply 20, posted (9 years 1 month 1 week 1 day ago) and read 952 times:

Today's Republican party and those in party are neo-conservatives. It's this new brand of conservativism that is different from the previous version of Republican conservatism. It justifies the heavy spending of tax dollars to extend the arm of the U.S. military to have a greater influence in world affairs. Donald Rumsfeld is the mouth for this movement these days, and Rove is the brains behind the presidency.

I just wish that conservatism of the days before would return.



NO URLS in signature
User currently offlineMD-90 From United States of America, joined Jan 2000, 8508 posts, RR: 12
Reply 21, posted (9 years 1 month 1 week 1 day ago) and read 946 times:

Quoting Tbar220 (Reply 20):
I just wish that conservatism of the days before would return.

You may get what you wish for if Hillary becomes President.


User currently offlineSlider From United States of America, joined Feb 2004, 6858 posts, RR: 34
Reply 22, posted (9 years 1 month 1 week 14 hours ago) and read 928 times:

Quoting TedTAce (Reply 17):
I believe welfare should be a stop gap measure at best (much like it is now). Give those who genuinely NEED it get it JUST long enough to get themselves going.

Agreed.

Quoting TedTAce (Reply 17):
I believe that Social Security was a mistake.

That's twice I've agreed with you.

Quoting TedTAce (Reply 17):
tax PENALITY be given those like myself who had children and burdened society with HAVING to create homes, jobs, cars, infrastructure, and everything else they will need when they come of working age. The insanity of our ever expanding population is DUMB.

I disagree- how can we fund the entitlements you just enumerated in #1 and #2 above without growing the population? I'm not a sky-is-falling overpopulation freako, but clearly, we need to manage resources better, both natural and manmade.

What you're forgetting Ted is that this is coin is two-sided...those new births aren't just taking FROM but they're contributing TO society (hopefully) in terms of their skills, abilities and fruits of their labors. It's not a zero sum game.

Quoting Tbar220 (Reply 20):
I just wish that conservatism of the days before would return.

No doubt- rooted in Constitutional libertarianist doctrines, old school like Goldwater.  Smile


User currently offlineTedTAce From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 23, posted (9 years 1 month 1 week 14 hours ago) and read 924 times:

Quoting Slider (Reply 22):
What you're forgetting Ted is that this is coin is two-sided...those new births aren't just taking FROM but they're contributing TO society (hopefully) in terms of their skills, abilities and fruits of their labors. It's not a zero sum game.

One thing I have learned/experienced with weight managment is something called a 'set point'. Effectively your body will find a point at which it's 'happy'. unfortuantely for me, mine's @ about 280lbs, which is very unhealthy, but as I can't change the factors that contribute to this, there is little I can do for now. BUT at least I'm not getting bigger, and maybe one of these days I will be able to change my diet and activity level to decrease where this point is.

My problem is this nation proverbally speaking weighs at LEAST as much as I do in relative terms. We have too many people cloging up our arteries (the roads we drive on), and if we keep insisting on gaining weight (adding to the population without regard) we will have a economic crisis (heart attack) and DIE.

Do I think everyone should have an abortion for the next several years F-NO!! I'm just saying we should do a lot more thinking before we F.. and not chide those who choose to terminate thier mistakes.


User currently offlineMatt D From United States of America, joined Nov 1999, 9502 posts, RR: 47
Reply 24, posted (9 years 1 month 1 week 14 hours ago) and read 921 times:

Just something to throw out, rather than encourage more abortions, which are a surefire way to incite more civil unrest, why not offer some sort of cash payouts for voluntary sterilization-cash that you can use for anything you want, from paying off bills to gambling to fish and chips for your 500 closest freinds? Say-$10,000 for women and $20,000 for men, plus the cost of the procedure and ensuing treatment.

When you consider what one kid will cost society in the span of 80 years in terms of diapers, cars, gas, food, trash, school, etc, this proposal would be a bargain.

This would only be possible for PERMANENT sterilization-such as a hysterectomy or castration. Pills and vasectomys, even [fallopian] tube ties if I'm not mistaken can be reversed.

Not to sound sexist, but all things being equal, one man could potentially produce a hell of a lot more kids than any woman could even hope to-hence the higher payout.

It would be hard to cheat on this freebie. If your testicles or ovaries are missing, then that means you are no longer entitled.

[Edited 2005-09-16 16:51:29]

25 TedTAce : This is what your proposal would do. That's not a fair thing to do. it's one thing to change your mind about having a baby 'for now' but saying absol
26 Post contains links SATX : http://www.sideshow.connectfree.co.uk/JustForTheRecord.htm Yes, we're all morons compared to a genious like you.
27 Slider : I'd say we have too many marginal people clogging things up- if we get back some sense of an achievement society instead of an entitlement one, there
28 Scamp : Geez...if irony were strawberries, we'd be up to our armpits in Smoothies.
29 Scamp : I think I just heard the sound of several hundred million Roman Catholics having a stroke. Not that I don't disagree with you, however. Personally, I
30 Post contains links TedTAce : You need to go to http://www.robertishere.com/ . Great excuse to run down to Miami an hang out with the boys.
31 We're Nuts : Sounds like next year will be 1984.
32 Matt D : What part of VOLUNTARY did y'all miss?
33 LTBEWR : Part of the problem now for Bush, is that he needs to spend $300 BILLION to make sure the Republicans get the votes they need in that region to assure
34 We're Nuts : Come on, Matt. Do you really want to walk that tightrope?
35 B744F : Go research the history of Eugenics
36 MaverickM11 : ...Not because she's conservative, but because she would provide enough "yin" to the Republican "yang" that nothing would get accomplished...and the
Top Of Page
Forum Index

This topic is archived and can not be replied to any more.

Printer friendly format

Similar topics:More similar topics...
Bush Finally Exhibits A True Conservative Value. posted Thu Jun 15 2006 13:47:42 by TedTAce
Grenade Thrown At Bush Was Not A Dummy posted Wed May 18 2005 16:59:47 by Falcon84
Bush Did Not Lie About Iraq, Say Democrats posted Tue Jul 13 2004 01:11:52 by MaverickM11
What If Bush Did Not Run In 2004... posted Fri Nov 28 2003 06:05:37 by Lehpron
Bush Did Not Get CIA OK On Iraq WMD Claim posted Sun Jul 20 2003 16:12:29 by Alpha 1
Right Now Bush May Not Be On AL's Ballot In 04 posted Thu Apr 24 2003 10:57:40 by MD-90
Bush Urged Not To Go Back To UN posted Sun Mar 23 2003 04:06:31 by Delta-flyer
G W Bush Is Not Stupid posted Thu Aug 15 2002 18:43:42 by GD727
What Bush Knew NOT :-) posted Thu May 30 2002 03:34:05 by Advancedkid
Bush: I Will Not Meet Arafat posted Thu Nov 8 2001 20:51:05 by LY772