Posted on 04/13/2009 12:00:38 AM PDT by neverdem
I don’t know of any self-respecting conservative who said that which you put in quotes. None.
OTOH I do recall Rush back in 2003 lamenting Bush’s cave in on steel tariffs. Not to mention fighting Bush on medicare part D drug benefit, alongside almost 2 dozen fiscal conservative Republicans. You dont see anything at all like that on the liberal side wrt Obama, at least not right now. Even anti-TARP liberals have gotten strangely quiet over Obama’s bank bailouts.
When my elderly liberal Mom whined in 2004 about that Medicare part D program, as if it wasnt right/wasnt enough, solely because Bush was behind it, I realized that Bush’s “compassionate conservatism” big-spending triangulation was a failure. It was designed precisely to win people like her over - it failed. Many conservatives knew it then and were arguing against it the whole time. Not to mention immigration and the “Jorge Bush” types. If you were one of them, you make my point - conservatives were NOT blindly following Bush like lemmings. They were dissenting from the right.
It was because the conservative grassroots ARE NOT GOOD FOLLOWERS (including the conservative talk radio hosts) that Bush ended up very unpopular and our GOP ‘leadership’ scattered and is now a minority, regrouping and licking wounds. A political disaster that was borne out of political hubris, just as Iraq suffered from a different hubris in the execution of that war ... except Bush rescued Iraq and never rescued GOP domestic policy.
I think Obama’s $16 TRILLION in spending in 4 years and the Democrat Congress’ double digit increases in domestic spending, tripling of S-CHIP and ‘downpayment’ of almost a trillion dollars on socialized medicine is for sure a Big-Govt spending spree on a whole new level beyond what Bush ever did. The idea that Republicans lost moral authority to speak these truths simply because some of them might have erred and supported Bush when he was fiscally irresponsible on a much smaller level is absurd.
Pain was the past two years of Pelosi/Bush love affair, I almost check in a hospital :)
“Hear that Paul followers, it was obvious that Obama had to protect us. “
Oh yeah, that Obama strike to take out Iran’s nuclear ambitions, his shoot down of RPNK satellite was a given ...
“it was obvious” ...
oh wait, he didnt do that? He didnt say “no” when Europe said any third-worlder could run the IMF, World Bank? He sold us out on the Int’l Criminal COurt, so any grunt marine can has his ass in a sling from some socialist jurist in a foreign country that hates America? he actually released Gitmo Cole conspirators rather than hold them in Gitmo?
... don’t be a dummy, Obama in less than 100 days have been more dangerous for long-term American security, sovereignty and power than any prior President. Not to mention Obama’s sellout of Poland and East Europe on missile defense and his kowtowing to Kyoto nonsense while getting zippo from China on the issue. His Europe tour was a dazzling display of how to win friends personally and destroy American influence in the process.
So far, he is worse than Carter. Carter was merely naive. Obama OTOH has a programmatic agenda to bring America down a notch, as if our fall from power would be a virtue.
It’s far to early to declare he has ‘kept us safe’. 3 teenagers adrift on the ocean were enough to bring Obama to ‘negotiations’ and he was p-whipped by Iran his *first week*. He wants to defund key DoD programs. Yet curiously wants to do in Afghanistan what Bush did in Iraq, a time and a place fraught with the peril of US retreating should we show lack of resolve; and in the midst of that, the idiocy of speaking of ‘moderate taliban’ and bashing his predecessor to foreign audiences to curry favor. Every argument Obama and his fellow Dems used against involvement in Iraq could be used against what he is planning in both Iraq and Afghanistan.
See, there is a REASON the Demos are viewed as weak on foreign policy. They cant help it, they always put partisan posturing ahead of national security. US sovereignty to Obama is not something to be preserved but An Inconvenience!
The world is not safe while Iran has thousands of centrifuges whirling away, while our troops in Afghanistan face a taliban, and (still) have fewer allies to assist ... beware the error of declaring a conclusion before the facts are in.
You kidding. It started as the myth in Rush's first book about Reagan(and I like Rush unlike Hannity and Levin, have 24/7 now) and the bots repeat it all the time to defend GWB disaster.The robot's belief's:
1) Cutting taxes while increasing spending IS economic growth(ie debt is growth, GWB 2002-2006 debt was REAL economic growth) ,
and
2) You can never raise taxes to pay for increased spending because that would cut tax revenue instead of increase it, So you always cut taxes, and increase spending ,increase debt, to get rich in increase revenues.
It's the canned Talk radio talking points, and all the robots repeat it. It's the religous belief of the 5-10% believers
ping ‘neverdem’
I was quoting him
Someone up there said, its not filled with air, so popping it won’t work. Overturning it would work. So would sniper bullets.
WOSG: I don’t know of any self-respecting conservative who said that which you put in quotes. None.
I don't think he was talking about "self-respecting conservatives" instead referring to talk-radio hosts and the Bots that repeat the mantra ad infinitum.
I know I heard all sorts of variations of the above, not necessarily in one breath but repeated endlessly over the past few years.
Liberal politics can be hazardous to your health(R). ;-)
Thanks, your posts are always interesting. My questions are just my way of trying to get closer to the truth, although I am no Socrates.
I thought you would also draw a parallel of Trotsky vs. German fascism and (potentially) Obama vs. Islamic fascists, since neither Hitler nor the Islamic fascists are interested in sharing power if they win. Maybe that is implied.
Sounds like B. Franklin.
Nope, a little more contemporary than that.
And he liked cigars too.
Yes, I have heard it ... by LIBERALS who claim that is what conservatives support. WE DONT. WE NEVER DID. Not a single conservative talk show host nor even any “Bot” whoever that may be has advocated ‘printing money are economic growth’.
That’s Keynesian fantasy talk.
If you claim Republican conservatives said that, give me names and quotes. Without that, this is just ad hominem attacks and IMHO bunkum.
There are liberal ‘concern trolls’ who are spreading the “cult-like” meme strongly, trying to get conservatives to stop supporting traditional values, limited govt... and trying to shame Republicans away from this by falsely claiming Bush did everything Obama is doing. Again - BUNK. Dont fall for the distortion.
You claim conservative ‘bots’ are saying: “Cutting taxes while increasing spending IS economic growth”
oh PULEEZE. There is a night and day difference between cutting taxes and increasing spending. The difference between Tom Coburn on the right and Barack Obama on the left.
Conservative view: Cutting taxes reduces price of Govt and helps increase economic growth. specifically tax RATES on production/income/earnings/investment. Proven in history, by basic ECON 101 understanding of how economic incentives work, etc.
But you falsely conflate spending in there ... huh?!? Where in Rush’s long career did he EVER say increasing Govt spending leads to economic growth??? Where? Never! You are descending into ad hominem nonsense by confusing categories!
“2) You can never raise taxes to pay for increased spending because that would cut tax revenue instead of increase it”
Another strawman. “NEVER” - show me the quote.
The statement is true:
“Often raising taxes to pay for increased spending is counterproductive because it makes business flee and weakens the economy.” True enough that New York, Cali and Michigan are all poster-child examples of that error. Likely the USA under Obama will be too, as high tax increases will boomerang to hurt the economy. The contrary view is to be like Bob Dole and support tax hikes for the programs the Dems pass; as Newt called it “the tax-collector for the welfare state.” True conservatives see through all that bunk and know that spending and taxes both need to be reduced.
If someone did come out and say “Tax increases never work” - they are closer to truth than the economic bunk that most politicians spout (eg Summers saying he is relying on “Keynesian” economics?!?!).
If you want to have that debate about whether Republicans are to be the taxcutters for the welfare state, FINE, but the impression here that ‘bots’ welcomed higher spending to spur the economy?!? BS. It’s in line with the false ‘fiscal irresponsibility’ meme - that RINOs and liberals love to spread - the false notion that tax-cutters are responsible or like higher spending /deficits. That’s completely false. Reality is that the fiscal conservatives who pushed for lower taxes are ALSO the ones who consistently stood up for ending earmarks cutting spending and opposing welfare and entitlement expansions. The deficits are wholly the result of excessive Govt spending.
Conversely, the big spending types were and are ALWAYS opponents of real tax reduction and tax reform.
Last, there were some “big-Govt conservative” koolaid drinkers. big Govt conservative is an oxymoron. Those folks are now discredited as are the RINO politicians who towed that line. No single conservative talk radio show host was among that small inside-the-beltway clique AFAIK.
Again, make your case with direct quotes and name names. YOu are certainly wrong to put Rush in that category. As it is, you are make claims at variance with the known records of these folks.
If you are referring to that exact quote, you're probably right. If you are denying that Republicans and so-called conservatives have not embraced Keynesian economics in pushing big-government solutions and government spending to justify jobs and substitute for real economic growth, I think you need to look closer. I would name names, but I suspect you would just tell me they were not conservative. As an example, looking forward, there are a number pushing for mega-spending on environmental programs. Kinda hard to talk about "limited government" being a platform of the Republican Party with those loons running around.
I kept on threatening my republican friends I would vote for Hillary if McCain got selected, fortunately Hillary didnt win. (I did BEFORE coulter did too.)
I assume you got about the same response as she did, LOL.
Keen observation but they even have a better one. Levin-bots like their master will say the that republican you picked (GWB) was a conservative, “except on that one issue that they (the bot) opposed”
That way they always win. GWB was a conservative that did NON conservative things. Incidently most tax cuts republicans proposed, and passed under GWB were justified by Keynesian economics. That's why democrats could hi-jack the issue so easily.
In California, Arnold has ruined just about every pitch one could make about what Republicans stand for.
It makes recruiting an almost impossible task as those that back him hold the Party purse strings.
Why bother being a Republican if all they are going to do is act like Democrats?
No, GWB and lackeys Levin+Hannity taught the public that government was free. That You could increase government endlessly and no-one has to pay for it. That’s called magic. So now that everyone in country has their hands out, you say, “Not so fast, I am against that, it's not conservative “, Well too late, you broke the fiscal responsibility lock. You gave Pelosi/Obama the license to steal. Case in point: You all LOVED GWB rebuilding Iraq while cutting taxes and not raising any taxes, all on some kids credit card. But then when the public demanded their handouts, and GWB gave in, you said “I am not for that”But GWB got himself in a corner, he had no basis to say 'NO' once you all told the public you could rebuild Iraq for free.
I dont remember Hannity/Levin going after GWB for NOT promising to cut spending during debate with Kerry. There would be a price for that. Only after he was safely elected.
RE ““Often raising taxes to pay for increased spending is counterproductive because it makes business flee and weakens the economy.”
Really? What if GWB repealed YOUR (and Hannity and Levin) tax cut and then raised your taxes but told you it was to pay for Iraq, for the troops. Would you have fled the country? quit your job? held a tea party? Cut back work hours? No! Really?? Something doesn’t add up here. If so would you still call those against Iraq traitors if YOU were cutting back hours to avoid the Iraq tax?
RE : Cutting taxes reduces price of Govt and helps increase economic growth. specifically tax RATES on production/income/earnings/investment. Proven in history, by basic ECON 101 understanding of how economic incentives work, etc.
That's the problem. Since you (republicans as a group) believe that cutting taxes reduces the cost in government, you always increase spending astronomically when you cut taxes. Only one thing reduces cost in government, cut government. Only one thing stimulates economic growth, cut government. Cutting taxes while increasing government only gives the illusion of growth, but it is only stealing from someone elses future. Yet now that that future is here(2009), (the bills are due), instead of wanting to pay for it politically you claim it’s all non-conservatives debt(not selling). You want to take credit for the party the boom, but point blame for the hangover on others. Then claim it’s a mystery democrats are in charge.
RE :“"There is a night and day difference between cutting taxes and increasing spending.“
Really? If GWB taxes a dollar less of your pay, and spends the same amount, that is still stealing. But he spent two additional dollars, on stuff you so-called conservatives approved.
RE “ Reality is that the fiscal conservatives who pushed for lower taxes are ALSO the ones who consistently stood up for ending earmarks cutting spending and opposing welfare and entitlement expansions. “
Really? fiscal conservatives like GWB? I think the Hannity/Levin bots stood up for re-buiding Iraq without funding it with taxes, like an Iraq tax on YOU,(and Hannity and Levin)
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.