Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

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

1 posted on 08/11/2002 8:38:55 AM PDT by EveningStar
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

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
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

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
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

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
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

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.
5 posted on 08/11/2002 8:53:51 AM PDT by EveningStar
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

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
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

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
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

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
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: EveningStar
Yawn.
9 posted on 08/11/2002 9:01:18 AM PDT by pittsburgh gop guy
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: pittsburgh gop guy
Don't let me keep you up. :)
10 posted on 08/11/2002 9:03:05 AM PDT by EveningStar
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: EveningStar
How Conservative Is President Bush?
11 posted on 08/11/2002 9:09:49 AM PDT by michigander
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: EveningStar
Bingo! And Clinton gave our peace dividend to the Chinese!
12 posted on 08/11/2002 9:12:56 AM PDT by Night Hides Not
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

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
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

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.
14 posted on 08/11/2002 9:19:18 AM PDT by EveningStar
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

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.

15 posted on 08/11/2002 9:23:37 AM PDT by RJCogburn
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

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
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: EveningStar
the article is 100% correct
17 posted on 08/11/2002 9:44:15 AM PDT by Red Jones
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

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
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

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
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

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
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: MoJo2001
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.

Yep. Those are ALL War related, aren't they...

LOL...you guys are grapsing at straws.

21 posted on 08/11/2002 10:32:02 AM PDT by DAnconia55
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: EveningStar
You hit the nail on the head. One of the things that annoys me is how the liberal press helps the Democrats get away with saying (paraphrased) 'Bush spent the Clinton surlpus.'

It was the GOP Congress that helped create the surplus. The surplus was created by an increase in revenues from the corporate income tax (due to the 1990s economic expansion) and the cut in the capital gains tax.

Before the war on terror, Bush had already 'spent' the surplus with a huge increase in education spending and a useless (Democrat inspired) tax rebate. Both of which were mainly to help himself politically.

That's understandable, it is much better than the alternative -- Gore wasting even more on education spending and raising tax rates in the middle of an economic slowdown, but I hoped for better.

Bush's repayment to the conservatives in Congress who left him a surplus to work with? Hold a vote on partial-birth abortion just before the 2002 elections in an attempt to put the Democrats on the spot. Smart politics, but the bill will easily pass, almost two years after he could have passed the same bill and saved thousands of unborn babies.

I am not religious at all, I am simply bringing the PBA angle in to make a point. If that's the way Bush treats his core constituency, on a bill that should easily pass w/ Democrat support (meaning easy to defend, no real lost political capital), then conservative GOPers need to make sure he understands that supporting their agenda will benefit him personally. Otherwise, he will simply play politics.

22 posted on 08/11/2002 10:38:48 AM PDT by Gothmog
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: FITZ
We've had other presidents who worked hard at being one termers...
23 posted on 08/11/2002 10:41:52 AM PDT by ofMagog
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 20 | View Replies]

To: EveningStar
The better question would be, how much of the conservative agenda Clinton was able to accomplish with a Republican majority in the Senate and House, than Bush with a Democratic Senate majority?
24 posted on 08/11/2002 10:45:54 AM PDT by swheats
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Satadru
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.

In the first Bush discretionary budget, he ONLY raised the budgets of two departments relative to GNP -- Defense and Education. All the other twenty-something departments WERE CUT!

25 posted on 08/11/2002 12:29:17 PM PDT by FreeReign
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: EveningStar
Bush has signed a bill to regulate political speech...

Bush said that parts of the CFR bill were unconstitutional and he said he would let the courts take care of it.

protectionist taxes on imported steel...

In a time of war, the steel industry is most likely being protected for defense reasons. The media won't tell you that though because it doesn't fit their agenda.

26 posted on 08/11/2002 12:36:36 PM PDT by FreeReign
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: MoJo2001
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.

Freedom is truth. Both HUD and the IRS were cut relative to GNP in Bush's first budget.

27 posted on 08/11/2002 12:39:20 PM PDT by FreeReign
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: EveningStar
Who's the more fiscally conservative, Clinton or Bush?

Tariffs, agriwelfare...I don't want to think about it.

28 posted on 08/11/2002 12:43:33 PM PDT by gcruse
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Red Jones
the article is 100% correct

This article is not objective.

29 posted on 08/11/2002 12:47:28 PM PDT by FreeReign
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]

To: EveningStar

Waco, Elian, Ruby Ridge, IRS gate, FBI file gate, RonBrown gate, impeachment etc... Who would be so stupid as to compare anyone to CLinton?


30 posted on 08/11/2002 12:50:50 PM PDT by lavaroise
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: EveningStar
Clinton had the benefit of losing the congress to the Republicans in '94 and that saved him from himself.

Unfortunately, in Bush's desire to avoid everything Clintonesque to minimize reminding Americans of Clinton, he seems to have eschewed winning, too.

Therefore, thanks to Republicans in congress, Clinton's final one and a half terms were a success for conservatives.

31 posted on 08/11/2002 12:59:07 PM PDT by Nephi
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: EveningStar
From '95 to 2001, Clinton had a GOP House and Senate. Bush has only had a GOP House. Bush has veered left and has not defended freedom, no doubt about that, but he's no Bill Clinton.
32 posted on 08/11/2002 1:32:48 PM PDT by Kermit
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: EveningStar
I don't know how a quote becomes "Quote of the Day" but I think this one needs to be posted around FR:

I really wish these people could decide on a story and stick to it; first he is too stupid to get out of bed; next, he is so crafty and cunning, he is going to take over the world; next, he is too stupid to pronounce big words; next, he is so sly, he was pulling the wool over everyone's eyes with complex business dealings; next, he is the goofy frat-boy, not ready for complex issues; now, he is the elitist, trying to make himself seem one of the guys.

22 posted on 8/11/02 3:46 PM Eastern by Paul Atreides

33 posted on 08/11/2002 3:28:01 PM PDT by ItisaReligionofPeace
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: EveningStar
They're both part of the problem. They've both have made things worse for those of us who would like to see a more conservative, more free republic that adheres to our constitution.

Clinton was an evil self server. Bush is just a blueblooded jackass who never had conservative philosophy and couldn't buy one at a second hand conservative philosophy store.

They're both a net loss for freedom.

34 posted on 08/11/2002 3:41:46 PM PDT by AAABEST
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: AAABEST
THE NATIONAL DEBT IS 6 TRILLION DOLLARS! (UP OVER 50% SINCE 1990) (THANKS BILL} INTEREST PAYMENTS ON THE NATIONAL DEBT ARE THE 2ND LARGEST EXPENDITURE IN THE FEDERAL BUDGET. (health and human services is no 1!) WE WILL NEVER BE ABLE TO PAY DOWN THE PRINCIPLE ON THIS MONSTROUS DEBT. If the national debt grows at the same rate in the last period(1970-2000) by 2030 the debt will be over 100 TRILLION dollars. You think I'm joking? The PUBLIC DEBT was 300 billion in 1970. That's up 2000%. What's consevative about that? OUR GRANDCHILDREN will have IMF BAILOUTS IN THEIR FUTURE. HEAD FOR THE HILLS!!!
35 posted on 08/11/2002 6:51:57 PM PDT by majic12
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 34 | View Replies]

To: FreeReign
In the first Bush discretionary budget, he ONLY raised the budgets of two departments relative to GNP

And Republicans screamed when Medicare was described so by the Demonkrats.

You guys are hilarious, not a bit of consistency about you at all....

If one more cent was added to the budget, it was raised. Regardless of GNP.

36 posted on 08/11/2002 7:18:28 PM PDT by DAnconia55
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 25 | View Replies]

To: DAnconia55
In the first Bush discretionary budget, he ONLY raised the budgets of two departments relative to GNP

If one more cent was added to the budget, it was raised. Regardless of GNP.

Actually I was mistaken. Let me revise my statement;

In the first Bush discretionary budget, he ONLY raised the budgets of two departments relative to inflation and increase in population.

37 posted on 08/11/2002 7:29:21 PM PDT by FreeReign
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 36 | View Replies]

To: FreeReign
Bush is not very conservative because the American people are not very conservative. He is just trying to go along to get along with "we the people." And it would be nice if he could get Katie Couric to say something nice about him next week. Or is she on vacation too?
38 posted on 08/11/2002 7:36:39 PM PDT by Theodore R.
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 37 | View Replies]

To: lavaroise
Waco, Elian, Ruby Ridge, IRS gate, FBI file gate, RonBrown gate, impeachment etc... Who would be so stupid as to compare anyone to CLinton?

Not to nit-pick but Ruby Ridge happend during Bush I. Yes, it really doesn't matter who is in charge of a stomping giant government, they all screw it up.

39 posted on 08/12/2002 6:04:56 AM PDT by AAABEST
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 30 | View Replies]

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson