What is Conservatism?

[Votto]

I'm just wondering if one of the so called conservatives can inform me of what conservatism is with regard to economic policy.
I was under the impression that conservatism is lower taxes, lower government spending, and balanced budgets. I have never seen a conservative do this though. The era of big deficits and big government spending started with Reagan as he was the first president to say screw it just blow up the deficit.

Actually things might have turned out ok because Bill Clinton actually cut government spending and thus had a government surplus. All that was thrown out the window when Bush another so called conservative passed massive tax cuts that did little to spur economic growth along with massive government spending bills turning a surplus to a massive deficit.

Now we have Trump who has done the same as Bush and has enacted a massive tax cut and massive spending bills leading to a massive deficit 10 years into an economic expansion when deficits are supposed to be at their smallest.

I haven't seen any so-called conservatives criticizing any of this so I am just wondering what they believe in and what is conservatism?

Conservatism has no place in the Federal government, even though some conservative policies sometimes filter through.

The US Federal government has become a collectivist Leviathan, and as such, has no place for conservatism.

Just look at how the GOP ran against Obamacare and building the wall. They get in power and look what they do, nothing, that's what.

Then they wonder why they are out of work.

If the Republican party had 100% unity, Commie Care would be gone and the wall would be in the making. But unlike the Democrat party, the Republican party is split in two: conservatives vs establishment. The establishment is nothing more than Democrat Lite. Without the establishment, you would be seeing major changes to this country.

Na, we just have one party.

The Swamp.

 

[Mac1958]

In its current incarnation, economic conservatism means to cut taxes as far as possible, avoid spending cuts because you'd lose your next election, blame Democrats for all spending (even when you have the power to change that), brag about any growth, and pretend deficits don't matter.

It doesn't need to make sense. It needs to keep talk radio, and therefore the base, on your side, screaming ignorant, simplistic platitudes. That's all that matters. Literally.

If the Republicans had any real balls, they'd cut spending BEFORE they cut taxes, so that voters could see the effects of those cuts. But they don't have the balls, and their followers are ignoring that, too.

Which is utter bull because the conservative constituency always screamed out against spending. You talk about ball-less, why don't the Democrats come out and openly say they are Communists? After all, that's what they really are. They will eventually say it, but now they are just taking baby steps towards it. They changed liberalism to Progressive. Now they introduced Democrat Socialism whatever the hell that's supposed to be. Down the road they will drop Democrat and just run as Socialists. Way down the road they will then change it to Socialist Communism.

Of course they can't do it overnight. You need the frog in the pot of water on the stove to think he's just getting a warm bath.

All the GOP has to do to prove it's serious is to cut spending first.

As long as they don't, they're playing their base for fools.
.

Don't look now, the GOP is out of power.

Now they can take the next two years off in the hopes of getting back into power by making Nancy Pelosi and Maxine Waters bring them the needed votes.

Wash, rinse, repeat.

Yeah, they pissed away the last two years, but as long as they keep the base happy....
.

 

[Lesh]

The GOP holds the Senate..the White House and the Supreme Court.

They are not "out of power" by a long shot

 

[The Banker]

So just wondering do you oppose abortion, pot or drugs, freedom of any religion including islam because it seems that the right only wants to accept freedoms that they agree with vs freedoms for all. Freedom is guns, porn, abortion, drugs, and religion, freedom from law enforcement searches (patriot act), etc etc. The right definitely wants to choose which freedoms you have.

No. We have laws to protect people. Abortion is one of those things that protect people in the eyes of conservatives and the religious because they believe babies are indeed people. Abortion is not one of those major issues with me because it doesn't impact my life one way or the other. Porn? Only those far right (and very few of them) have any issues with porn. Drugs? That's a big one with me. Recreational narcotics kill people, cause harm to families and neighbors. It should be illegal because it effects more than just the user. Many of our murders are because of drugs, and on a personal note, my house almost burned to the ground because I rented the downstairs apartment to a user (who didn't pay his bill) and had another rip out all the wiring in one of my other apartments. I don't have to tell you what that cost me. Plus my cousin lost her son about two years ago due to an overdose. She will never be the same.

Yeah with drugs I would say all drugs are different. pot ecstasy are not addictive and not that harmful where as meth and heroin are very harmful so they need to be addressed differently. The problem is results, and the results of our drug policy have been terrible, and have done nothing to reduce use, crime, or importation into the country but that is a separate issue. As we learned from prohibition, making something illegal doesn't do anything to curb the negative effects. I think if somebody wants to smoke pot they should be allowed to, and certainly should not get arrested for it.

When you say the laws are to protect the people well more innocent people die from gun violence then the amount of people that are saved so if you wanted to protect and save people then getting rid of guns would do that. Overall we would all be safer with strict bans on guns like Australia or other countries. I'm not advocating that because in a free society people are allowed guns, but if we are strictly looking at public safety then we would all be safer with strict gun control.

Okay, so on one hand, you say that in spite of our laws, penalties, and incarceration, we still have a huge problem with drugs. Well what do you think would happen if we did the same with firearms?

Drug laws stop law abiding citizens from participation. The criminal element doesn't obey laws; that's why they are criminals in the first place.

If you could make all guns illegal in the US, what you would end up with is a disarmed society and an armed criminal element because the criminals will get their hands on guns just like they do with drugs today.

Yes there is a little truth in that, but if we adopted strict gun laws like in Australia it would greatly reduce the amount of guns being sold and the amount of guns making there way to criminals. Gangs in NYC are driving to vermont to buy guns because they allow personal sales with no background checks then they are using the guns for criminal means. A large percentage of the guns used in crimes or killings come from legal sources. The Vegas shooter or FL shooter etc. If we had Australia like gun control it would greatly reduce the amount of guns in our country.
Again I am not advocating for Australia like gun control, but if you say we want laws that protect peoples lives that is how you do it.

Then why are Australia laws such a failure?

The Vegas shooter purchased all his guns legally. That means he went through a background check for nearly every one although I think he got a few from the internet. Ether way, he was a common everyday law abiding citizen of the USA.

Do you have any links to your claim that gangs in NY are purchasing their arms in Vermont and using them for criminal purposes? Because I know a lot of people who have bought and sold guns. Not one of them ever sold a firearm to a stranger without copying their ID. After all, if I sell a gun to somebody and he kills a victim, the first place authorities are going to come to is my home for questioning. I wouldn't want that and I don't think anybody would.

Who says the Australian laws are a failure. They have greatly reduced gun deaths. You don't like those laws and I also don't want them because I truly stand for personal liberty, but if you want laws that save lives, like you said, the Australian gun laws have saved a lot of lives.

As for Vegas, you just stated my point. These people are buying legal guns and using them in a crime. If we had the Australian laws then Vegas would not have happened as well as FL.

For NYC and links there are literally 100 of them:
Almost 74% of guns used in New York crimes come from states with weaker gun laws
How Gun Traffickers Get Around State Gun Laws
"It found that 74 percent of guns used in crimes and 86 percent of handguns used in crimes came from other states"


Criminals are going to states with weak gun laws and legally buying guns then they bring them back to NYC or Boston and sell them on the black market or use them in crimes. The point being is that if every state had strict gun laws that would eliminate the major source for these guns. There will always be a black market, but this is one way to reduce the source and supply of guns. My friend in Massachusetts went to some other state in New England (I forget which one) and bought an AK47 at a gun show and brought it back here and we shoot it. In the end the source of that gun was not the black market, but a legal gun show.

I think when Conservatives say we are for personal liberty/freedom you really just mean guns and you also are against other personal freedoms that you don't like such as pot abortion gay marriage etc. Liberty and freedom mean everything not what you personally want. Just wondering besides gun what personal liberties do you support that liberals oppose?

 

[The Banker]

In its current incarnation, economic conservatism means to cut taxes as far as possible, avoid spending cuts because you'd lose your next election, blame Democrats for all spending (even when you have the power to change that), brag about any growth, and pretend deficits don't matter.

It doesn't need to make sense. It needs to keep talk radio, and therefore the base, on your side, screaming ignorant, simplistic platitudes. That's all that matters. Literally.

If the Republicans had any real balls, they'd cut spending BEFORE they cut taxes, so that voters could see the effects of those cuts. But they don't have the balls, and their followers are ignoring that, too.

Which is utter bull because the conservative constituency always screamed out against spending. You talk about ball-less, why don't the Democrats come out and openly say they are Communists? After all, that's what they really are. They will eventually say it, but now they are just taking baby steps towards it. They changed liberalism to Progressive. Now they introduced Democrat Socialism whatever the hell that's supposed to be. Down the road they will drop Democrat and just run as Socialists. Way down the road they will then change it to Socialist Communism.

Of course they can't do it overnight. You need the frog in the pot of water on the stove to think he's just getting a warm bath.

All the GOP has to do to prove it's serious is to cut spending first.

As long as they don't, they're playing their base for fools.
.

100% correct. Reagan, Bush Trump massive spending and deficits. Then they tray and claim they are for balanced budgets?? It doesn't add up. Bill Clinton is the only president to actually cut spending, republicans like to claim it was Gingrich, but it wasn't it was Clinton because then a few years later the same congress spent recklessly under Bush.

Just recently they proposed the amendment that requires a balanced budget after they have just voted for a reckless tax cut and spending bills that have destroyed the budget. It's all BS to try and manipulate their base.

 

[Billy_Kinetta]

No. We have laws to protect people. Abortion is one of those things that protect people in the eyes of conservatives and the religious because they believe babies are indeed people. Abortion is not one of those major issues with me because it doesn't impact my life one way or the other. Porn? Only those far right (and very few of them) have any issues with porn. Drugs? That's a big one with me. Recreational narcotics kill people, cause harm to families and neighbors. It should be illegal because it effects more than just the user. Many of our murders are because of drugs, and on a personal note, my house almost burned to the ground because I rented the downstairs apartment to a user (who didn't pay his bill) and had another rip out all the wiring in one of my other apartments. I don't have to tell you what that cost me. Plus my cousin lost her son about two years ago due to an overdose. She will never be the same.

Yeah with drugs I would say all drugs are different. pot ecstasy are not addictive and not that harmful where as meth and heroin are very harmful so they need to be addressed differently. The problem is results, and the results of our drug policy have been terrible, and have done nothing to reduce use, crime, or importation into the country but that is a separate issue. As we learned from prohibition, making something illegal doesn't do anything to curb the negative effects. I think if somebody wants to smoke pot they should be allowed to, and certainly should not get arrested for it.

When you say the laws are to protect the people well more innocent people die from gun violence then the amount of people that are saved so if you wanted to protect and save people then getting rid of guns would do that. Overall we would all be safer with strict bans on guns like Australia or other countries. I'm not advocating that because in a free society people are allowed guns, but if we are strictly looking at public safety then we would all be safer with strict gun control.

Okay, so on one hand, you say that in spite of our laws, penalties, and incarceration, we still have a huge problem with drugs. Well what do you think would happen if we did the same with firearms?

Drug laws stop law abiding citizens from participation. The criminal element doesn't obey laws; that's why they are criminals in the first place.

If you could make all guns illegal in the US, what you would end up with is a disarmed society and an armed criminal element because the criminals will get their hands on guns just like they do with drugs today.

Yes there is a little truth in that, but if we adopted strict gun laws like in Australia it would greatly reduce the amount of guns being sold and the amount of guns making there way to criminals. Gangs in NYC are driving to vermont to buy guns because they allow personal sales with no background checks then they are using the guns for criminal means. A large percentage of the guns used in crimes or killings come from legal sources. The Vegas shooter or FL shooter etc. If we had Australia like gun control it would greatly reduce the amount of guns in our country.
Again I am not advocating for Australia like gun control, but if you say we want laws that protect peoples lives that is how you do it.

Then why are Australia laws such a failure?

The Vegas shooter purchased all his guns legally. That means he went through a background check for nearly every one although I think he got a few from the internet. Ether way, he was a common everyday law abiding citizen of the USA.

Do you have any links to your claim that gangs in NY are purchasing their arms in Vermont and using them for criminal purposes? Because I know a lot of people who have bought and sold guns. Not one of them ever sold a firearm to a stranger without copying their ID. After all, if I sell a gun to somebody and he kills a victim, the first place authorities are going to come to is my home for questioning. I wouldn't want that and I don't think anybody would.

Who says the Australian laws are a failure. They have greatly reduced gun deaths. You don't like those laws and I also don't want them because I truly stand for personal liberty, but if you want laws that save lives, like you said, the Australian gun laws have saved a lot of lives.

As for Vegas, you just stated my point. These people are buying legal guns and using them in a crime. If we had the Australian laws then Vegas would not have happened as well as FL.

For NYC and links there are literally 100 of them:
Almost 74% of guns used in New York crimes come from states with weaker gun laws
How Gun Traffickers Get Around State Gun Laws
"It found that 74 percent of guns used in crimes and 86 percent of handguns used in crimes came from other states"


Criminals are going to states with weak gun laws and legally buying guns then they bring them back to NYC or Boston and sell them on the black market or use them in crimes. The point being is that if every state had strict gun laws that would eliminate the major source for these guns. There will always be a black market, but this is one way to reduce the source and supply of guns. My friend in Massachusetts went to some other state in New England (I forget which one) and bought an AK47 at a gun show and brought it back here and we shoot it. In the end the source of that gun was not the black market, but a legal gun show.

I think when Conservatives say we are for personal liberty/freedom you really just mean guns and you also are against other personal freedoms that you don't like such as pot abortion gay marriage etc. Liberty and freedom mean everything not what you personally want. Just wondering besides gun what personal liberties do you support that liberals oppose?

These, for starters -

 

[g5000]

I'm just wondering if one of the so called conservatives can inform me of what conservatism is with regard to economic policy.
I was under the impression that conservatism is lower taxes, lower government spending, and balanced budgets. I have never seen a conservative do this though. The era of big deficits and big government spending started with Reagan as he was the first president to say screw it just blow up the deficit.

Actually things might have turned out ok because Bill Clinton actually cut government spending and thus had a government surplus. All that was thrown out the window when Bush another so called conservative passed massive tax cuts that did little to spur economic growth along with massive government spending bills turning a surplus to a massive deficit.

Now we have Trump who has done the same as Bush and has enacted a massive tax cut and massive spending bills leading to a massive deficit 10 years into an economic expansion when deficits are supposed to be at their smallest.

I haven't seen any so-called conservatives criticizing any of this so I am just wondering what they believe in and what is conservatism?

You are correct on all points with respect to FISCAL conservatism. Balanced budgets, low spending, low taxes.

However, as you said, that has not been the case for the GOP in a very, very long time.

To read the posts of pseudocons, you would think "conservatism" these days is synonymous with hypocrisy.

For example:

I've seen many conservatives criticize spending including myself. As for Presidents, they don't spend the money--Congress does.

You see, now that Trump has doubled our deficits back to a trillion dollars, the pseudocons have suddenly decided the President is no longer responsible for our deficits.

Yet this very same hypocritical asshole held Obama accountable for the debt while he was in office.

See for yourself:

According to Factcheck.org, the debt ran up by Ears was 10 trillion.

"...the debt ran up by Ears..."

Notice he doesn't waffle around and say Obama (Ears) didn't spend the money.


So...yeah.

Pseudocons these days have chucked conservatism right out the window. Family values, fiscal conservatism, honesty, integrity, holding the line against Russian aggression and imperialism, protecting the Constitution, honoring our military, and so forth. Right out the window.

You will NEVER hear a psueducon bitch about Trump's trillion dollar deficits.

 

[g5000]

Pseudocons are all about family values, except when it comes to fucking porn stars while your wife is at home nursing your newborn.

Pseudocons are all about honoring our military, except when it's raining outside and the clown's hair and makeup might melt.

Pseudocons are all about fiscal responsibility, except when doubling the federal deficit in under two years.

I honestly do not know what it is that pseudo-conservatives stand for.

It isn't standing by our allies and friends.

It isn't standing up to a KGB thug.

It isn't freedom of the press.

It isn't keeping the government out of interfering in the markets.

It isn't "draining the swamp".

I do not know what they stand for. At all.

 

[SassyIrishLass]

In its current incarnation, economic conservatism means to cut taxes as far as possible, avoid spending cuts because you'd lose your next election, blame Democrats for all spending (even when you have the power to change that), brag about any growth, and pretend deficits don't matter.

It doesn't need to make sense. It needs to keep talk radio, and therefore the base, on your side, screaming ignorant, simplistic platitudes. That's all that matters. Literally.

If the Republicans had any real balls, they'd cut spending BEFORE they cut taxes, so that voters could see the effects of those cuts. But they don't have the balls, and their followers are ignoring that, too.

Which is utter bull because the conservative constituency always screamed out against spending. You talk about ball-less, why don't the Democrats come out and openly say they are Communists? After all, that's what they really are. They will eventually say it, but now they are just taking baby steps towards it. They changed liberalism to Progressive. Now they introduced Democrat Socialism whatever the hell that's supposed to be. Down the road they will drop Democrat and just run as Socialists. Way down the road they will then change it to Socialist Communism.

Of course they can't do it overnight. You need the frog in the pot of water on the stove to think he's just getting a warm bath.

All the GOP has to do to prove it's serious is to cut spending first.

As long as they don't, they're playing their base for fools.
.

Don't look now, the GOP is out of power.

Now they can take the next two years off in the hopes of getting back into power by making Nancy Pelosi and Maxine Waters bring them the needed votes.

Wash, rinse, repeat.

Yeah, they pissed away the last two years, but as long as they keep the base happy....
.

Sounds like eight years under Ears too

 

[BluesLegend]

Trump is building a RED wall of defense in the SCOTUS

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

No. We have laws to protect people. Abortion is one of those things that protect people in the eyes of conservatives and the religious because they believe babies are indeed people. Abortion is not one of those major issues with me because it doesn't impact my life one way or the other. Porn? Only those far right (and very few of them) have any issues with porn. Drugs? That's a big one with me. Recreational narcotics kill people, cause harm to families and neighbors. It should be illegal because it effects more than just the user. Many of our murders are because of drugs, and on a personal note, my house almost burned to the ground because I rented the downstairs apartment to a user (who didn't pay his bill) and had another rip out all the wiring in one of my other apartments. I don't have to tell you what that cost me. Plus my cousin lost her son about two years ago due to an overdose. She will never be the same.

Yeah with drugs I would say all drugs are different. pot ecstasy are not addictive and not that harmful where as meth and heroin are very harmful so they need to be addressed differently. The problem is results, and the results of our drug policy have been terrible, and have done nothing to reduce use, crime, or importation into the country but that is a separate issue. As we learned from prohibition, making something illegal doesn't do anything to curb the negative effects. I think if somebody wants to smoke pot they should be allowed to, and certainly should not get arrested for it.

When you say the laws are to protect the people well more innocent people die from gun violence then the amount of people that are saved so if you wanted to protect and save people then getting rid of guns would do that. Overall we would all be safer with strict bans on guns like Australia or other countries. I'm not advocating that because in a free society people are allowed guns, but if we are strictly looking at public safety then we would all be safer with strict gun control.

Okay, so on one hand, you say that in spite of our laws, penalties, and incarceration, we still have a huge problem with drugs. Well what do you think would happen if we did the same with firearms?

Drug laws stop law abiding citizens from participation. The criminal element doesn't obey laws; that's why they are criminals in the first place.

If you could make all guns illegal in the US, what you would end up with is a disarmed society and an armed criminal element because the criminals will get their hands on guns just like they do with drugs today.

Yes there is a little truth in that, but if we adopted strict gun laws like in Australia it would greatly reduce the amount of guns being sold and the amount of guns making there way to criminals. Gangs in NYC are driving to vermont to buy guns because they allow personal sales with no background checks then they are using the guns for criminal means. A large percentage of the guns used in crimes or killings come from legal sources. The Vegas shooter or FL shooter etc. If we had Australia like gun control it would greatly reduce the amount of guns in our country.
Again I am not advocating for Australia like gun control, but if you say we want laws that protect peoples lives that is how you do it.

Then why are Australia laws such a failure?

The Vegas shooter purchased all his guns legally. That means he went through a background check for nearly every one although I think he got a few from the internet. Ether way, he was a common everyday law abiding citizen of the USA.

Do you have any links to your claim that gangs in NY are purchasing their arms in Vermont and using them for criminal purposes? Because I know a lot of people who have bought and sold guns. Not one of them ever sold a firearm to a stranger without copying their ID. After all, if I sell a gun to somebody and he kills a victim, the first place authorities are going to come to is my home for questioning. I wouldn't want that and I don't think anybody would.

Who says the Australian laws are a failure. They have greatly reduced gun deaths. You don't like those laws and I also don't want them because I truly stand for personal liberty, but if you want laws that save lives, like you said, the Australian gun laws have saved a lot of lives.

As for Vegas, you just stated my point. These people are buying legal guns and using them in a crime. If we had the Australian laws then Vegas would not have happened as well as FL.

For NYC and links there are literally 100 of them:
Almost 74% of guns used in New York crimes come from states with weaker gun laws
How Gun Traffickers Get Around State Gun Laws
"It found that 74 percent of guns used in crimes and 86 percent of handguns used in crimes came from other states"


Criminals are going to states with weak gun laws and legally buying guns then they bring them back to NYC or Boston and sell them on the black market or use them in crimes. The point being is that if every state had strict gun laws that would eliminate the major source for these guns. There will always be a black market, but this is one way to reduce the source and supply of guns. My friend in Massachusetts went to some other state in New England (I forget which one) and bought an AK47 at a gun show and brought it back here and we shoot it. In the end the source of that gun was not the black market, but a legal gun show.

I think when Conservatives say we are for personal liberty/freedom you really just mean guns and you also are against other personal freedoms that you don't like such as pot abortion gay marriage etc. Liberty and freedom mean everything not what you personally want. Just wondering besides gun what personal liberties do you support that liberals oppose?

Left-wing politfact has some issues about the data combined in your articles. Maybe you should give it a read. In the event you don't have time, allow me to point out the conclusion of their findings:

Clinton’s specific statistical computation is accurate. But beyond the numbers, Clinton’s claim is misleading for a varied number of reasons. From a policy perspective, experts say raw numbers of gun flows are likely a better measure. And while the ATF data set is the best we have, Clinton’s bold comment glosses over some important caveats about the data, including whether the guns it captures are representative and whether they line up with "trafficking." These caveats call into question whether Vermont’s gun policies are having the effect Clinton suggests.

The statement is partially accurate but leaves out important details and context, so we rate it Half True.

A look at Hillary Clinton's claim about Vermont's gun pipeline to New York

Now to those wonderful Australian policies:

In 2002 — five years after enacting its gun ban — the Australian Bureau of Criminology acknowledged there is no correlation between gun control and the use of firearms in violent crime. In fact, the percent of murders committed with a firearm was the highest it had ever been in 2006 (16.3 percent), says the D.C. Examiner.

Even Australia’s Bureau of Crime Statistics and Research acknowledges that the gun ban had no significant impact on the amount of gun-involved crime:

In 2006, assault rose 49.2 percent and robbery 6.2 percent.
Sexual assault — Australia’s equivalent term for rape — increased 29.9 percent.
Overall, Australia’s violent crime rate rose 42.2 percent.

The Captain's Journal » Do Gun Bans Reduce Violent Crime? Ask the Aussies and Brits

If the gun ban in Australia was so effective, why did it take over six years before any signs of improvement?

And then there is this:

While the poll continues, so far over 80 percent of the 11,000+ respondents have told the Telegraph that they want to see the handgun ban repealed. The news comes as America contemplates its own new laws on gun ownership, with British talk show host Piers Morgan claiming to back a UK-style ban for the United States.

Britain wants its guns back - The Commentator

 

[g5000]

In its current incarnation, economic conservatism means to cut taxes as far as possible, avoid spending cuts because you'd lose your next election, blame Democrats for all spending (even when you have the power to change that), brag about any growth, and pretend deficits don't matter.

It doesn't need to make sense. It needs to keep talk radio, and therefore the base, on your side, screaming ignorant, simplistic platitudes. That's all that matters. Literally.

If the Republicans had any real balls, they'd cut spending BEFORE they cut taxes, so that voters could see the effects of those cuts. But they don't have the balls, and their followers are ignoring that, too.

Which is utter bull because the conservative constituency always screamed out against spending. You talk about ball-less, why don't the Democrats come out and openly say they are Communists? After all, that's what they really are. They will eventually say it, but now they are just taking baby steps towards it. They changed liberalism to Progressive. Now they introduced Democrat Socialism whatever the hell that's supposed to be. Down the road they will drop Democrat and just run as Socialists. Way down the road they will then change it to Socialist Communism.

Of course they can't do it overnight. You need the frog in the pot of water on the stove to think he's just getting a warm bath.

All the GOP has to do to prove it's serious is to cut spending first.

As long as they don't, they're playing their base for fools.
.

Don't look now, the GOP is out of power.

Now they can take the next two years off in the hopes of getting back into power by making Nancy Pelosi and Maxine Waters bring them the needed votes.

Wash, rinse, repeat.

Yeah, they pissed away the last two years, but as long as they keep the base happy....
.

Sounds like eight years under Ears too

Yep. Trump is like Obama. Only worse. Instead of lowering our deficits, like Obama did, Trump has doubled our deficits in just two years.

I'm fine with you rubes equating Trump to Obama. That's awesome.

Every time you blubber, "B-b-b-b-b-b-b-b-but Obama", you are admitting Trump is a piece of shit, too, and that you were conned.

 

[tigerred59]

I'm just wondering if one of the so called conservatives can inform me of what conservatism is with regard to economic policy.
I was under the impression that conservatism is lower taxes, lower government spending, and balanced budgets. I have never seen a conservative do this though. The era of big deficits and big government spending started with Reagan as he was the first president to say screw it just blow up the deficit.

Actually things might have turned out ok because Bill Clinton actually cut government spending and thus had a government surplus. All that was thrown out the window when Bush another so called conservative passed massive tax cuts that did little to spur economic growth along with massive government spending bills turning a surplus to a massive deficit.

Now we have Trump who has done the same as Bush and has enacted a massive tax cut and massive spending bills leading to a massive deficit 10 years into an economic expansion when deficits are supposed to be at their smallest.

I haven't seen any so-called conservatives criticizing any of this so I am just wondering what they believe in and what is conservatism?

Conservatism is fuck over anybody who's isn't rich or white and ignore anything that makes sense.

 

[BluesLegend]

Which is utter bull because the conservative constituency always screamed out against spending. You talk about ball-less, why don't the Democrats come out and openly say they are Communists? After all, that's what they really are. They will eventually say it, but now they are just taking baby steps towards it. They changed liberalism to Progressive. Now they introduced Democrat Socialism whatever the hell that's supposed to be. Down the road they will drop Democrat and just run as Socialists. Way down the road they will then change it to Socialist Communism.

Of course they can't do it overnight. You need the frog in the pot of water on the stove to think he's just getting a warm bath.

All the GOP has to do to prove it's serious is to cut spending first.

As long as they don't, they're playing their base for fools.
.

Don't look now, the GOP is out of power.

Now they can take the next two years off in the hopes of getting back into power by making Nancy Pelosi and Maxine Waters bring them the needed votes.

Wash, rinse, repeat.

Yeah, they pissed away the last two years, but as long as they keep the base happy....
.

Sounds like eight years under Ears too

Yep. Trump is like Obama. Only worse. Instead of lowering our deficits, like Obama did, Trump has doubled our deficits in just two years.

I'm fine with you rubes equating Trump to Obama. That's awesome.

Every time you blubber, "B-b-b-b-b-b-b-b-but Obama", you are admitting Trump is a piece of shit, too, and that you were conned.

Dem's oppose any spending cuts, there you have it.

 

[BluesLegend]

Conservatism is fuck over anybody who's isn't rich or white and ignore anything that makes sense.

 

[g5000]

All the GOP has to do to prove it's serious is to cut spending first.

As long as they don't, they're playing their base for fools.
.

Don't look now, the GOP is out of power.

Now they can take the next two years off in the hopes of getting back into power by making Nancy Pelosi and Maxine Waters bring them the needed votes.

Wash, rinse, repeat.

Yeah, they pissed away the last two years, but as long as they keep the base happy....
.

Sounds like eight years under Ears too

Yep. Trump is like Obama. Only worse. Instead of lowering our deficits, like Obama did, Trump has doubled our deficits in just two years.

I'm fine with you rubes equating Trump to Obama. That's awesome.

Every time you blubber, "B-b-b-b-b-b-b-b-but Obama", you are admitting Trump is a piece of shit, too, and that you were conned.

Dem's oppose any spending cuts, there you have it.

BWA-HA-HA-HA-HA!

The GOP Congress has INCREASED spending dramatically.

When have the Republicans ever cut spending, retard?

Jesus, you people lie by omission so reflexively, you don't even know when you are doing it.

 

[tigerred59]

I'm just wondering if one of the so called conservatives can inform me of what conservatism is with regard to economic policy.
I was under the impression that conservatism is lower taxes, lower government spending, and balanced budgets. I have never seen a conservative do this though. The era of big deficits and big government spending started with Reagan as he was the first president to say screw it just blow up the deficit.

Actually things might have turned out ok because Bill Clinton actually cut government spending and thus had a government surplus. All that was thrown out the window when Bush another so called conservative passed massive tax cuts that did little to spur economic growth along with massive government spending bills turning a surplus to a massive deficit.

Now we have Trump who has done the same as Bush and has enacted a massive tax cut and massive spending bills leading to a massive deficit 10 years into an economic expansion when deficits are supposed to be at their smallest.

I haven't seen any so-called conservatives criticizing any of this so I am just wondering what they believe in and what is conservatism?

Every conservative since Reagan, has never ever ever ever ever ever ever ever left office without straddling this country with huge deficits and THAT IS FACT!! The only time they give a damn about the deficit is when a democrat takes office, ANOTHER FACT

 

[BluesLegend]

Don't look now, the GOP is out of power.

Now they can take the next two years off in the hopes of getting back into power by making Nancy Pelosi and Maxine Waters bring them the needed votes.

Wash, rinse, repeat.

Yeah, they pissed away the last two years, but as long as they keep the base happy....
.

Sounds like eight years under Ears too

Yep. Trump is like Obama. Only worse. Instead of lowering our deficits, like Obama did, Trump has doubled our deficits in just two years.

I'm fine with you rubes equating Trump to Obama. That's awesome.

Every time you blubber, "B-b-b-b-b-b-b-b-but Obama", you are admitting Trump is a piece of shit, too, and that you were conned.

Dem's oppose any spending cuts, there you have it.

BWA-HA-HA-HA-HA!

The GOP Congress has INCREASED spending dramatically.

What does that have to do with Dem's opposing spending cuts?

 

[The Banker]

I'm just wondering if one of the so called conservatives can inform me of what conservatism is with regard to economic policy.
I was under the impression that conservatism is lower taxes, lower government spending, and balanced budgets. I have never seen a conservative do this though. The era of big deficits and big government spending started with Reagan as he was the first president to say screw it just blow up the deficit.

Actually things might have turned out ok because Bill Clinton actually cut government spending and thus had a government surplus. All that was thrown out the window when Bush another so called conservative passed massive tax cuts that did little to spur economic growth along with massive government spending bills turning a surplus to a massive deficit.

Now we have Trump who has done the same as Bush and has enacted a massive tax cut and massive spending bills leading to a massive deficit 10 years into an economic expansion when deficits are supposed to be at their smallest.

I haven't seen any so-called conservatives criticizing any of this so I am just wondering what they believe in and what is conservatism?

Hey, stupid fuck. Let me ask you about that surplus, since you are a "fucking banker."

Who controls the spending in government? Is it the President or the House? Let me clue you in. The House controls spending. Who controlled the House AND Senate for the last 6 years of clintons Presidency?

Go ahead and take a guess. I will give you a hint. Newt Gingrich.

Hey stupid ass, let me ask another thing, since you are a "smart banker." What did president clinton NOT have to deal with, that every other President had to deal with dating back to February 1945 (Yalta Conference?) Take a wild guess Mr "Banker." Oh, that is right. The fucking COLD WAR where YOUR SIDE LOST. The ussr and their glorious marxist proved to be a failed system. All under the crying commie eyes here.

Did open trade have any impact on our economy? Yes or no?

While you are at it, Mr Banker, tell me who rewrote the Community Reinvestment Act did. Do you know who even rewrote it? When did that happen and what impact did that have on our banks?

Well, Mr "banker" I will be waiting for your explanation. You already showed how ignorant you are in your pathetic post, so I will not be expecting anything from your stupid ignorant ass.

WOW!!!!! What a childish rant filled with childish name calling, what happened did your mommy take away your fox news? You are acting like a 5 year old and you look stupid.

As far as spending input comes from both the legislative and executive branches as they work together to pass budgets. Clinton's agenda was to cut spending and balance the budget, he used veto power to ensure a balanced budget. Additionally he raised taxes on the wealthy which was opposed by Gingrich, but went a long way to balancing the budget. Remember this:
"The tax increase will kill jobs and lead to a recession, and the recession will force people out of work and onto unemployment"

Then on top of that the same GOP Congress approved all the reckless spending and tax cuts of Bush, so lets not try and claim that the GOP likes balanced budgets. Bill Clinton likes balanced budgets. Obama had a GOP congress for 6 years does that mean all of Obama's shortcomings are a result of that Congress?? We have had a GOP congress under Trump and the deficit has almost tripled since Trump took over. The cold war has long been over so why did we have massive military spending increases?

I know reality is a tough pill for you to swallow. How can conservatives claim they are for balanced budgets and spending cuts when they have absolutely blown up the deficit?

Time to throw another tantrum like a child...

 

[g5000]

Democrats: Tax and spend

Republicans: Borrow and spend