Welcome to PatsFans.com

Conservative, not?

Discussion in 'Political Discussion' started by Patters, Apr 27, 2007.

  1. Patters

    Patters Moderator Staff Member PatsFans.com Supporter

    Joined:
    Sep 13, 2004
    Messages:
    17,768
    Likes Received:
    132
    Ratings:
    +169 / 4 / -4

    We've had two major conservative presidents in the last 50 years: Reagan and Bush II. Reagan is still beloved by conservatives, and I'm sure most of Bush's 28% approval rating comes from conservatives. So, looking at the charts on this page, my conclusion is that the new conservativism is no longer fiscally prudent. They may talk a good line, but in fact they are Keysnian in their approach, and this approach is supported by their conservative base.

    http://www.cedarcomm.com/~stevelm1/usdebt.htm

    "In 2002 Bush’s increase of the debt was 24 times greater than Clinton’s last year in office, 430 billion v. 18 billion. In a matter of only two years neo-con leadership had managed to get spending completely out of control."
  2. PatsWSB47

    PatsWSB47 Rookie

    Joined:
    Mar 13, 2007
    Messages:
    7,786
    Likes Received:
    69
    Ratings:
    +113 / 0 / -1

    #12 Jersey

    You talk a good line too. If it wasn't for the war in Irag, republicans would probably still be in control of all the branches. While many of the voters are not "major conservatives" they are more to the right than what the 28% approval rating suggests. It's still around 50-50 in this country and it's the ones in the center that usually swing one way to the other to give a particular party it's party . Right now they pretty much all of them swung left mostly due to the Irag war.
  3. Real World

    Real World Moderator Staff Member

    Joined:
    Aug 15, 2006
    Messages:
    26,832
    Likes Received:
    147
    Ratings:
    +313 / 4 / -2


    Since when was George Bush II a fiscal conservative?
  4. QuiGon

    QuiGon Banned

    Joined:
    Mar 28, 2006
    Messages:
    6,123
    Likes Received:
    0
    Ratings:
    +0 / 0 / -0

    Sorry, but I don't consider Bush II to be a "major conservative".
    Reagan is still beloved by all Americans, except the radical left.
  5. Pujo

    Pujo Rookie

    Joined:
    Dec 15, 2005
    Messages:
    6,572
    Likes Received:
    4
    Ratings:
    +4 / 0 / -0

    Lol, so anyone who doesn't like Reagan is part of the radical left? Nope, no other reason someone would dislike him, he was such a uniter and all. I'll bet the air traffic controllers he fired don't like him.
  6. patsfan13

    patsfan13 Hall of Fame Poster PatsFans.com Supporter

    Joined:
    Jan 4, 2005
    Messages:
    24,639
    Likes Received:
    67
    Ratings:
    +126 / 7 / -13

    Any Bush a conservative???????

    "Not Hardly" (J Wayne)

    You are right if Bush had done the politically astute thing rather than having the courage to do what he feels in right the pubbies would still have majorities int he house and senate and his poll numbers would be high. However he had the political courage to do what was (in his view) right rather than play politics and is willing to pay the price.


    Reagan is the most popular ex president of the past 50 years. You guys have to get out of the Northeast (and Europe) and see the rest of America.
  7. wistahpatsfan

    wistahpatsfan Rookie

    Joined:
    Jul 30, 2005
    Messages:
    15,672
    Likes Received:
    11
    Ratings:
    +11 / 0 / -0

    Goes to show that Americans want two things: Money and peace. Two of my favorite things.
    Last edited: Apr 27, 2007
  8. godef

    godef Rookie

    Joined:
    Sep 13, 2004
    Messages:
    3,118
    Likes Received:
    6
    Ratings:
    +6 / 0 / -0

    Duuuuuuuuuuuuuh?............ and who STARTED the Iraq war?!? Answer: not a Democrat.
  9. PatsWSB47

    PatsWSB47 Rookie

    Joined:
    Mar 13, 2007
    Messages:
    7,786
    Likes Received:
    69
    Ratings:
    +113 / 0 / -1

    #12 Jersey

    Absolutely brilliant observation. Cut out with the "duh" stuff already. Voters changed to vote out republicans becasue of the Iraq war didn't automatically change their stance on all the other issues like taxes, death penalty, abortion, etc.
    Last edited: Apr 27, 2007
  10. PatsFanInVa

    PatsFanInVa PatsFans.com Supporter PatsFans.com Supporter

    Joined:
    Mar 19, 2006
    Messages:
    20,173
    Likes Received:
    228
    Ratings:
    +344 / 6 / -8

    Have to agree. Voters do not like the idea that if they die they can not leave an inheritence to their children.

    It does not follow that voters are concerned about the minority who intend to leave a million dollars or more to their descendents (the estate tax exclusion, if the current bill sunsets in 2011,) or 2 to 3.5 million (the exclusion for the estate tax right now.)

    In other words, Americans might not be so thrilled to continue to fund a repeal in the estate tax, when it is made clear that it only affects the estate of a millionaire.

    Republicans are savvy about this issue. They know people will vote for what they're going to be. The number who will vote for the rights of millionaire will always exceed the number who will actually become a millionaire, because people will vote for what they project themselves to be.

    And when the inevitable comes to their own parents, or to themselves, the "estate tax" would not have touched them in the first place.

    In other words, yes, your estate is taxable, but there is an exclusion not projected to dip below one million dollars. The tax percentage is higher, the richer you get.

    Should rich people pay more taxes? Conning the poor into saying "no," is pretty much the conservative agenda... meanwhile, how many rich guys are teachers? Cops? Firemen? Soldiers? Precious few.

    And don't forget... we end up using the single biggest chunk of our tax burden on war - another part of the conservative agenda.

    The Democrats left this country in the best fiscal shape it's been in for decades. We were finally running a surplus; the country was comparatively at peace; we were a respected member of the "family of nations."

    Now? In parts of the Arab world, Bin Laden polls higher than Bush; We've insulted our own allies in Europe, and essentially pursue foreign policy objectives in a vacuum; Russia is making noises about re-starting the cold war; and we've spent hundreds of billions, with total costs probably into the trillions, on Iraq and Afghanistan. http://www.nytimes.com/2007/01/17/b...tml?ex=1326690000&en=7f221bfce7a6408c&ei=5090 (If you count only direct costs, and you're still looking at about a grand per taxpayer per year... and that's if nobody gets injured and needs health care from those wars in future years, etc. -- clearly an impossibility.)

    Keep telling yourself that there is some "classic" conservative model that's fiscally responsible. As practiced in my lifetime, "Conservatism" ends up in record spending deficits, far more so than the politics of "Liberalism."

    War. Good Gawd, Y'all. What is it good for?

    $141 Billion in 2007.

    PFnV
    Last edited: Apr 27, 2007
  11. Real World

    Real World Moderator Staff Member

    Joined:
    Aug 15, 2006
    Messages:
    26,832
    Likes Received:
    147
    Ratings:
    +313 / 4 / -2

    Ever heard of principle? I love how people always want to punish those in society who are more successful.

    As for the Dems leaving us in a great situation, sure, the 90's were great, no arguement from me there. We had a dem pres, and a repub house and senate mind you, split govt. Also, don't you think that the end of the Cold War had something to do with that? The threat we faced for 50 years had disolved, thus releasing the burden of the 5 decade old arms race. Furthermore, government was never cut. If anyone thought government was too big to begin with, well guess what, it increased in size in the 90's, just like it did in the 80's, 70's, etc.... Cuz you take in more than you spend doesn't mean you were fiscally prudent. For example, i read yesterday the fed had a record day for tax receipts. What does that mean exactly? So, should GW take in $3.5 Trillion this year, does he suddenly become fiscally prudent? I think not. Government has been far too large, for far too long. I'm still waiting for someone to cut government. Guess what? That's not oging to happen. The only thing you can bet on is the next guy spending more than the guy before him.
  12. Harry Boy

    Harry Boy Look Up, It's Amazing PatsFans.com Supporter

    Joined:
    Nov 10, 2005
    Messages:
    39,169
    Likes Received:
    128
    Ratings:
    +353 / 1 / -9

    They wanted to, they said they would, Kerry said "Saddam Had To Go", they voted for the war, but something happened to them, a Moron beat them in the election, so it was up to the Moron to start the war that they wanted to start.
    Kerry/Kennedy said that "Saddam was a threat to the world" so the Moron got rid of Saddam for them.
    __________________________________________
    Two Elections Were Held Between The Democrtas And A Moron, Both Times The Moron Beat Them :singing:

Share This Page

unset ($sidebar_block_show); ?>