U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Covid-19 Information Page
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Politics and Other Controversies
 [Register]
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
 
Old 03-08-2007, 01:59 AM
 
Location: Lincoln, Nebraska (moving to Ohio)
673 posts, read 3,841,172 times
Reputation: 475

Advertisements

I was wondering if Bush is what one would consider a true libertartian fiscal conservative or a big spender?

I think the Medicare expansion was the best thing he did although the gap I think is silly. Although I am sure libertarians dont like that.

One could also argue that Bush is a small government conservative as according to the CBO federal government outlays
were 17% in 1965, 21% in 1975, 23% in 1985, 18% in 2000, 20% in 2006 and estimated to be 19% in 2010. Thus, the federal government outlays as percentage of GDP are low by historical standards

I think Bush going into Iraq and starting the civil was a big waste of half trillion dollars.

But other then that he certainly has not been a big spender and the deficits he has ran have been fairly minor.

I think all and all, Bush has been fairly fiscally conservative but the half trillion dollars spent on Iraq I think could have gone to tax cuts or for social programs.

When you think of it the 100 billion or so a year spent on Iraq is about .8% of GDP so the government could have been providing the same level of services at 18.2% as it does with 19% of GDP.

Last edited by MattDen; 03-08-2007 at 02:13 AM..
Rate this post positively

 
Old 03-08-2007, 07:26 AM
 
Location: Port St. Lucie and Okeechobee, FL
1,305 posts, read 5,169,927 times
Reputation: 1099
Quote:
Originally Posted by MattDen View Post
... according to the CBO federal government outlays were 17% in 1965, 21% in 1975, 23% in 1985, 18% in 2000, 20% in 2006 and estimated to be 19% in 2010.
Interesting numbers. Let's look at them. The lowest number you quote, 17%, was in a Democratic administration, after almost 5 years of Democratic policies. It went up to 21% after 6 years of Republican administrations, and reached it's peak in the middle of the Reagan administration. It would be interesting to see where it was during the Carter administration.

It was almost at the lowest point in 2000, after 8 years of the Clinton administration, then started back up again during the current adminstration. Interestingly, they project it will go back down 2 years after Bush leaves office, in an era largely predicted to have a Democratic president.

Based on these numbers, it's easy to see that it is Democrats who favor smaller government and who work to reduce the size of government. During the Clinton years, for example, it was the specific assignment of Al Gore to bring about a reduction in the size of government and a reduction of federal paperwork. I remember a momentous press conference in which there was a huge pile of paper that represented the reduction of paperwork. Now, your numbers are proving they did succeed in reducing the size of government, as well.

Very interesting. Facts are always so much more fun than bullshivicky from the right...
Rate this post positively
 
Old 03-08-2007, 08:59 AM
 
13,827 posts, read 20,006,550 times
Reputation: 23181
I think most conservatives (me included) gripe at him for being a "big Spender". He has that line item veto, he should use it. Plus he has enacted some very very large spending bills in the last few years - medicare is one of them.

Now Bush HAS had a tough 6 years that has required deficit spending. 9/11, Katrina, Iraq war (and, really, you should take out any political opinions on the Iraq war out of the equation when you consider if he is considered fiscally conservative or not). And, without argument, we successfuly rode out the recession that started in 2000, without inflation or stagnation to the economy.

So, yeah, he has needed to spend. Still, he's dissapointed me. He has to get that veto pen out and get to work.
Rate this post positively
 
Old 03-08-2007, 10:11 AM
 
8,771 posts, read 9,541,899 times
Reputation: 2484
Obviously Bush is not an ideological conservative and he is a moderate with some conservative tendencies, wich is interesting because like I tell my liberal freinds you guys should like him hes a big spender, the real reason people dislike him is he won, oops, "stole" sorry the election from their liberal icon Algore!
Rate this post positively
 
Old 03-08-2007, 11:52 AM
 
3,042 posts, read 8,299,846 times
Reputation: 1163
no, he is not a true social or true economic conservative, moderate more like it
Rate this post positively
 
Old 03-09-2007, 04:19 PM
 
Location: Maine
18,853 posts, read 22,566,847 times
Reputation: 22881
Bush is a neo-conservative, through and through. There's very little truly conservative about him.

Sadly, it's true of a great many within the Republican Party today. The true conservatives are out of power, and the nuts have taken over.
Rate this post positively
 
Old 03-09-2007, 08:00 PM
 
7,379 posts, read 7,030,968 times
Reputation: 1257
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mark S. View Post
Bush is a neo-conservative, through and through. There's very little truly conservative about him.

Sadly, it's true of a great many within the Republican Party today. The true conservatives are out of power, and the nuts have taken over.
Hard to argue with that. His only true conservative policy is his implementing the tax cuts.

For Oltimer, how soon you forget that Kennedy was a fiscal conservative. Remember, he implemented tax rate cuts and capital gains tax cuts. After Johnson implemented the Great Society, followed by liberal Republican Nixon, these figures increased. After Carter descimated the military, Reagan needed to spend money to rebuild it and to win the Cold War. Last, but not least, Clinton's last four years was dominated by a conservative Congress. Good try though.
Rate this post positively
 
Old 03-10-2007, 11:49 AM
 
Location: in my imagination
11,878 posts, read 19,293,454 times
Reputation: 8272
Quote:
Originally Posted by Amaznjohn View Post
Hard to argue with that. His only true conservative policy is his implementing the tax cuts.

For Oltimer, how soon you forget that Kennedy was a fiscal conservative. Remember, he implemented tax rate cuts and capital gains tax cuts. After Johnson implemented the Great Society, followed by liberal Republican Nixon, these figures increased. After Carter descimated the military, Reagan needed to spend money to rebuild it and to win the Cold War. Last, but not least, Clinton's last four years was dominated by a conservative Congress. Good try though.
I agree with this,the quote and response.The first years of Clinton's term he had a Demcratic controlled congress that increased taxes,like fuel taxes among other things.It was when the Repubs took over that reigned him in.

Sadly,Repubs had a chance with having the whitehouse and congress,but they blew it on spending also.The wrong Repubs in charge.Im beggining to think the best thing is to have one party in the whitehouse and another in congress to counteract each others stupidity.
Rate this post positively
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.

Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.


Similar Threads
Follow City-Data.com founder on our Forum or

All times are GMT -6.

© 2005-2020, Advameg, Inc. · Please obey Forum Rules · Terms of Use and Privacy Policy · Bug Bounty

City-Data.com - Contact Us - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37 - Top