Skip to comments.
Actions Speak Loudest: Who's the more fiscally conservative, Clinton or Bush?
National Review Online ^
| August 8, 2002
| Veronique de Rugy
Posted on 08/11/2002 8:38:55 AM PDT by EveningStar
President Bush may be repeating the sins of his father. Although elected on a Reaganesque, tax-cutting platform, he has veered left. President Bush has signed a bill to regulate political speech, issued protectionist taxes on imported steel and lumber, backed big-spending education and farm bills, and endorsed massive new entitlements for mental-health care and prescription drugs. When the numbers are added up, in fact, it looks like President Bush is less conservative than President Clinton.
(Excerpt) Read more at nationalreview.com ...
TOPICS: Business/Economy; Constitution/Conservatism; Culture/Society; Editorial; Extended News; Foreign Affairs; Government; News/Current Events; Philosophy; Politics/Elections
KEYWORDS: bush; clinton; conservative; protectionism; spending; taxes
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-20, 21-39 next last
To: EveningStar
President Clinton seems more conservative because he didn't have a WAR ON TERRORISM. President Bush has had to make some very difficult situation. On the one hand, we have people complaining about civil liberties being discarded. On the other hand, we have people who are terrified about another attack. President Bush has to do the best he can to help us. The budget numbers that were given did not take the cost of war into account.
Thanks to Bill Clinton..we now have to defend our country from faceless, nameless, and cowards who would attack our country because he was getting serviced in the White House. What a disgrace for all those idiots that voted for him.
2
posted on
08/11/2002 8:42:50 AM PDT
by
MoJo2001
To: MoJo2001
This is critical. Conservatives apparently have as much acceptance of this reality to assimilate as do liberals. Having a pure conservative society has no value if society is erased and replaced with a radioactive crater. Having low taxes and pro-Life justices and school vouchers and all the other litmus tests du jour matter not a whit if everyone glows in the dark.
This is exactly the same rationale that must be pounded onto the liberals when they try to engender their own grassroot enthusiasm. Kids having great schools and higher test scores won't matter if the schools are rubble. Abortion on demand is a pretty silly priority if the cities where the clinics are have their population erased by nerve agents. Total prescription drug coverage for Medicare isn't very compelling and compassionate if the drugs won't cure smallpox.
Everything takes a backseat to the war on terror. It has to. There is no society to become conservative or liberal if the population is dead.
3
posted on
08/11/2002 8:51:04 AM PDT
by
Owen
To: MoJo2001
If Bush had to spend a few billions more on defense and on homeland security, then why not cut other spending, like on education, HHS, housing, etc. Bush wants to have his cake and eat it too. We are spending 2 trillion dollars on the federal govt. That is nuts! I understand the need to spend 200 billion extra on defense/homeland security, but that money ought to come from other wasteful govt spending, and not from additional spending by the govt.
4
posted on
08/11/2002 8:52:02 AM PDT
by
Satadru
To: MoJo2001; Owen
Bush is not a convervative. He never was. He's a moderate. I knew this when I voted for him. I preferred him to Gore. Period.
To: Satadru
I understand the need to spend 200 billion extra on defense/homeland security, but that money ought to come from other wasteful govt spending, and not from additional spending by the govt. Exactly.
6
posted on
08/11/2002 8:55:28 AM PDT
by
Mr. Mojo
To: Satadru
If we want all these programs, from farm subsidies to the WOT, we should be willing to pay for them as we go. They have my grandchildren far enough in debt already.
7
posted on
08/11/2002 8:55:59 AM PDT
by
steve50
To: Satadru; Owen
I agree with you both!! I do believe that funding for such assanine things as the breeding practices of Grasshoppers are absolutely insane. Also, HHS will need the money to make sure their are vaccines and other defensive assets to ward off any biological or nuclear attack. God willing it will never come to that. As for the HUD factor, I absolutely agree. It should be cut. As should the Department of Education..but hey..that's me!!! Also, abolish the IRS.
Owen, I agree with you as well. There is no need to worry about this or that if we aren't going to be around to use it!! Defense comes first!
8
posted on
08/11/2002 8:57:47 AM PDT
by
MoJo2001
To: EveningStar
Yawn.
To: pittsburgh gop guy
Don't let me keep you up. :)
To: EveningStar
To: EveningStar
Bingo! And Clinton gave our peace dividend to the Chinese!
To: EveningStar
If the Constitution was followed at least 80% of the cost of the federal government would be eliminated.
13
posted on
08/11/2002 9:14:34 AM PDT
by
dalereed
To: michigander
I guess I didn't search as well as I should have before posting. Maybe this time it won't turn into a flame war. LOL.
To: MoJo2001
President Clinton seems more conservative because he didn't have a WAR ON TERRORISM. That is just the silliest excuse of the day. What does the WOT have to do with the farm bill, the education bill, campaign finance?
These Bush policy decisions make government bigger and more expensive
That is clear.
To: MoJo2001; JohnHuang2
Ping to JohnHuang2
My nomination for "Quote Of The Day"
16
posted on
08/11/2002 9:24:10 AM PDT
by
Kaslin
To: EveningStar
the article is 100% correct
To: MoJo2001
I would put all the vaccination needs, etc. as part of homeland security. The point is if you are spending more in some areas, cut from others. Bush doesn't want to cut any social programs because he doesn't want to piss off the Democrats. He likes his approval level and would rather spend a few hundred billion of our money to keep him up there. So much for being a conservative.
18
posted on
08/11/2002 10:18:10 AM PDT
by
Satadru
To: MoJo2001
President Clinton seems more conservative because he didn't have a WAR ON TERRORISM.But that's not all of it. Bush has actually proposed giving food stamps to immigrants ---not a conservative idea by a long shot. Clinton at least did sign a welfare reform bill that is supposed to limit the time that can be spent living off the taxpayers. Clinton wasn't a conservative either though.
19
posted on
08/11/2002 10:23:57 AM PDT
by
FITZ
To: Owen
Everything takes a backseat to the war on terror. The war on terror justifies a lot of government spending but not closing open borders where terrorists can come in. Social programs spending is at an all time high, it's Socialism that will likely destroy this country faster than terrorism.
20
posted on
08/11/2002 10:27:07 AM PDT
by
FITZ
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-20, 21-39 next last
Disclaimer:
Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual
posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its
management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the
exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson