SC DebateFollow

Ouch.

I think my guy Edwards came out on top, personally.
I'm getting further away from the other two every time I see them waste a debate on sniping at each other.

Not really related but still presidental:I remember when Thompson was going to shake up the entire vote with his true conservative values and standards

Depends on who you ask. To some, he was the Second Coming of Reagan. Hell, there were people on this forum (back when there were more regulars) who were jazzed up.

No, in a "Fred Thompson will be the next President, suck it, libs" kinda way.

I suppose if you get to make up your own definition of "conservative fiscal policy" is. Perhaps you should let the conservatives decide what their positions are rather then making up a strawman policy and the bashing folks for not matching it.

Yup. As I thought. You've invented a definition. Smash. It's not about spending. It's about taxation. Here's the entry on Fiscal Conservatism from answers.com:




Notice that nowhere does this say that Fiscal Conservatives must "cut spending", nor does it even preclude increasing spending. It simply says that the government should not foist unfair tax burdens on the population. Obviously, cutting spending is one way of doing that, but it's simply a means to an end. The real objective is to reduce the burden of government on the citizens.


Thanks for proving my point though.

Irrelevant. We can talk about how we got there all day long. I'd also suggest that the Dems stacking the last 50 years of US budgets full of long duration non-discretionary spending programs has more then a little bit to do with why we're unable to do something like maintain the US military at operating strength without running a deficit.

You're also injecting your own opinion into the likely success of the war as though I must agree with you and therefore apply that to my own "side" of the issue. Um... Wrong. I happen to think that our actions in Iraq are critically important. I happen to think that the spending on the war in Iraq will have a greater long term positive effect for the US (and the world as a whole) then the multiples more then that we spend each year on social programs that ultimately don't accomplish a darn thing (except spend money of course!).


The point that you and Smash are totally missing is that Bush's tax cuts are exactly in line with fiscal conservative policy. The important part is reducing the tax burden on the population. The belief is that this will not only increase individual liberty but if done at the correct level, will also increase economic growth over the long term, which in turn will reduce future tax burden even more (ie: same spending will consume a smaller percentage of a larger pie).

That's the conservative economic approach. Sure. We'd love to reduce spending at the same time. Newsflash. The Republicans never had a sufficient majority in Congress to actually pass the legislation needed to reduce those non-discretionary budgeted items which constitute 2/3rds of our federal budget.


I'll point out that by only doing half of what we'd have liked to do (reduce taxes and reduce spending), we still accomplished the very increase in GDP and economic growth that we predicted. Now. Had the Dems not steadfastly blocked cuts on spending, how much better off would we be? Yeah. Much much better off.


You guys are basically blaming Republicans because their plans didn't work 100% because the Dems prevented them from executing their plan completely. Um... How about blaming the Dems for this? It's amusing that you heap the "you didn't cut spending!" baggage on us, when it's the Dems who keep increasing spending. They're the ones who create huge government programs that can't be changed later (except to go higher). Military costs change each year based on the need. But the Dem programs just get more expensive without end. Period.


How about we apply the same standards to both parties and see what happens? Dems increase spending and it's all okie dokie. But republicans don't reduce spending and they're an economic disaster? How does that work logically in your head?



Er? You just make up numbers? Debt held by public is like 4.7 Trillion dollars. But hey. A factor of ten off is close, right?


But you guys don't use wild and inaccurate rhetoric to make your arguments, right? I should believe you when you say that the economy is screwed up, cause you apparently know all the facts.

Sheesh!



Maybe the mad squirrels in your brain who made it up?


How about this? We are less in debt today then we were when last the Dems held Congress and the White house. By a freaking large margin. Those are the facts. Please stop making stuff up about US debt, cause you're wrong. What's bizarre is that I just posted these numbers earlier today. Do you just not bother to read? Are you so brainwashed to your own positions that you can't even see fact when it's right in front of you?

Double Sheesh!




What? The debt that is less of a burden on them today then it was 15 years ago?

What part of the debt going from 50% of GDP to 37% of GDP is confusing to you?



The fact of the matter is that conservative fiscal policy believes that money left in the hands of the citizens instead of taken by the government will result in more positive gains over time. And we're right! Every single time we are right. The problem is that for some reason that I can't fathom a significant portion of our own population has bought into the Left wingnuts who say otherwise and continue to put the Dems in charge of our pursestrings. So everytime we actually start to make progress towards implementing conservative fiscal policies and it starts to become evident that we're right and the liberals are wrong, the massive attack machine gets mobilized, the smear campaigns gain the upper hand, and the populace votes the Dems back into power. Only to wonder why 10 years later their lives haven't gotten any better despite their taxes going up and their freedoms systematically being taken away from them.

When will people stop listening to rhetoric and start looking at the facts. Every single argument against conservative fiscal policies are trivially debunked by simply looking at the actual budget and revenue data. That's it. But so many people refuse to look. They'd rather be ignorant and believe themselves right I suppose...

No. I just tend to get my information from places you obviously dont.

Link

And before you start shouting about'crank lefties' or somesuch. Its worth a read.

It would appear that Milton Friedman thought so anyway.

These guys reckon its $9,188,640,287,930.39

And these guys reckon its $ 9,197,068,565,256


I expect you will now proceed to drown me in a morass of verbosity. But the fact is that debt is a monumental problem (not just in the USA), and wich is only getting worse.

Fuck all imo.

Are you saying he was voted in twice by liberals?

Its pretty difficult to see how either of them would have done more harm to the planet, but you're right, he's no conservative. A cnut, yes, conservative no.

I still hold 'conservatives' responsible for voting for him the second time, judges for 'appointing' him the first time, and those on the left who couldn't be ***** to get off the sofa and vote against him both times.

I just blame Nader, it's easier.

What part of "republicans never had a large enough majority in Congress to reverse the non-discretionary spending bills already in effect" did you not get?

See. Spending bills of the type that Dems favor are set to continue eternally. They have payment schedules that automatically increase spending on those programs each year. You have to actively choose to block renewal of these bills in order to prevent this automatic spending increase. And it's *incredibly* hard to do that once they're in place. Partly due to needing a larger majority then the Republicans had, but also partly due to the ease with which any attempt to do so will be turned into attack ads against the party doing it.


Do you recall the whole "OMG! Bush is cutting student loans!" thing? Do you know, or have your ever heard of anyone who was denied a student loan because the program itself was underfunded? No? But you heard the Republicans being attacked for attempting to lower the automatic funding to the program, right?

Now. Imagine of that's for after school programs for poor kids, or school lunches, or any of a number of other programs that can all be portrayed in such a way as to make anyone who's trying to cut the budget on it seem like some heartless cruel *******.

I'm sorry, but anyone who joins in on the attacks made when Republicans attempt to cut budgets kinda loses the moral authority to then bash Republicans because they didn't cut spending.