Now they made a good argument for why Bush is not a conservative, and neither were Nixon, Ford, H.W. Bush, or Eisenhower (I would argue that Bush is a model pre-Johnson Democrat).
Why does Reagan get a pass?
anyway...
Small-govt conservatism seems to be a utopian scheme that cannot be implemented in the real world. It doesn't have enough popular support to survive via democratic means.
"Is the Conservative Movement Dead?"
One can only hope...
//obligatory
Is the conservative movement brain dead?
You have to ask?
Why does Reagan get a pass?
Devine says that Reagan gets a pass because he did decrease non-defense, non-discretionary spending.
Reagan gets a pass because he did decrease non-defense, non-discretionary spending.
Conservatives have deluded themselves that defense spending doesn't really count as spending. So if they ever want to control spending, conservatives need to go back to their isolationist roots. Because their pro-military, "standing tall" platform always gets translated into "feed the military-industrial complex."
There were many isolationists in attendance who echoed that view.
conservatives don't think "that defense spending doesn't really count as spending. "
We think National Defense is one of the basic constitutional roles of the federal governement.
Yeah as in to "provide for the common defense", one of the few things the govt is currently doing that is actually in the Constitution.
Believe it or not defense spending is a much smaller portion of govt spending today than it was 30 years ago.
conservatives don't think "that defense spending doesn't really count as spending. "
Then why is the Iraq war spending taken off-budget in a series of special appropriations, if not to disguise the true cost?
Come to think of it, shouldn't true conservatives be in favor of a real Congressional Declaration of War before initiating hostilities?
We think National Defense is one of the basic constitutional roles of the federal governement.
The problem arises when conservatives confuse foreign military adventures with "national defense." It kinda blows their fiscal conservatism. Don't argue that point with me; go find yourself a real isolationist conservative to argue with.
If you guys think "provide for the common defence" means "invade Iraq..."
...then surely you can't quibble when I say "promote the general Welfare" means "lay taxes to provide health-care and old-age pensions."
Then why is the Iraq war spending taken off-budget in a series of special appropriations, if not to disguise the true cost?
The reason is so that spending is easier to elminate as part of the budget, rather than the DOD swallowing that money.
The reason is so that spending is easier to elminate as part of the budget...
uh-huh... And how's that working out?
We'll see when the war's over.
promote the general Welfare
Promote, not provide.
Promote, not provide.
The method of "promotion" is up to "We The People..."
And We have spoken - it's Social Security and Medicare. Deal with it.
Yeah. We'll be dealing with it alright. Check the stats out sometime. We will be completely bankrupted with the retirement of vast numbers of babyboomers. This was not a well thought out plan and I'm not sure how we can honor our commitments without destroying ourselves in the process.
I'm not sure how we can honor our commitments without destroying ourselves in the process.
Republicans continue to offer the false dichotomy of privatization vs. do-nothing.
But once we get some grownups in charge, we'll deal with it the same way we've always dealt with demographic shifts - raise the wage cap, raise the retirement age a little. It worked before and it will work again.
Commenting by HaloScan
