"Fiscal conservative"

[pkt]

A simple question to my American friends, Republican or Democrat, on this site:
Watching some of the American people who say that they are "fiscal conservatives" and yet they will support Bush in the Nov. 2 election.

What's wrong with these people? Don't they know that Bush inherited a surplus from Clinton and now the US is in deficit? [...and I'm not talking about the national debt. The US is the world's biggest debtor country; and guess who hold the bulk of the debts: the People's Republic of China, yes, "Red China", and Japan.] Are these people supporting Bush irrespective of his policies, his modus operandi, his lies?

I can't understand theses people: the two points are diametrically opposites.

Can you please enlighten me?

Thank you,
PK

[Black Jeebus]

The president doesn't actually control the budget. He proposes it, but its the congress which amends it and controls it. It was a Republican House which controlled the budget during the 90s. Our Executive and Legislative Branchs are two entirely different groups.

[AdventureDiva]

plus, one of the things that kinda makes you conservative is being fiscally conservative, as in, wanting to keep your money. i.e. getting rid of welfare so your hard-earned money doesn't go to deadbeets and such. i would say i'm pretty fiscally conservative myself.

i think that's kinda what it means. i could be wrong. not that i have much money to be conservative with anyhow...

~Rachael~

[Rogue]

Please remember the "surplus" was projected, not cash on hand. It's funny what a recession, terrorist attacks and a war will do to the economy and ergo gov. coffers.
This same deficit spending happened in the 80's Regan was fighting the cold war and Congress, both parties, added pork to "defense" bills in order to buy votes back home.
While I don't favor the deficit spending, to be realistic, the percentage of GDP this deficit represents is not the worst in history.

[latenight]

try the politics forum

[Maeve_Mari]

A simple question to my American friends, Republican or Democrat, on this site:
Watching some of the American people who say that they are "fiscal conservatives" and yet they will support Bush in the Nov. 2 election.

What's wrong with these people? Don't they know that Bush inherited a surplus from Clinton and now the US is in deficit? [...and I'm not talking about the national debt. The US is the world's biggest debtor country; and guess who hold the bulk of the debts: the People's Republic of China, yes, "Red China", and Japan.] Are these people supporting Bush irrespective of his policies, his modus operandi, his lies?

I can't understand theses people: the two points are diametrically opposites.

Can you please enlighten me?

Thank you,
PK

I don't get it either. It completely shakes my head when I try to figure out how "fiscally conservative" people think that we have even a fiscally responsible administration in Bush!

And yes, the President is responsible for the budget policy of during his administration.

[noodle]

<a href="http://www.salon.com/opinion/feature/2004/09/10/conservatives/index_np1.html" target="_blank">relavent link</a>

[Inquartata]

It's a result of our two-party system. We don't get to vote for a candidate who represents our views, only for the one who most closely approximates some of them. It is true that Bush is a spendthrift. However, he is still far and away more fiscally conservative than the alternative we have been offered. Sometimes one can but shrug and hold one's nose.

I voted for Bush in 2000. This time I'm voting for Kerry on balance-of-power grounds. But Bush still comes closer to fiscal conservatism than he does, going by their records and campaign promises.

[Black Jeebus]

And yes, the President is responsible for the budget policy of during his administration.

The president only proposes the budget. Congress has the final say in any spending the Pres may want to do.

[Inquartata]

Most people just cannot shake the belief that since the President is the leader he is responsible for everything and possesses god-like ( or devil-like when it comes to Bush ) powers over everything. That even matters in the purview of Congress or the courts he still controls from behind the scenes somehow. ( Unless it's something bad---that's always the other Party's fault. )

It's understandable, because that's the theory all politicians have been peddling for generations. The propaganda finds especially fertile ground in those who have not studied much economics...

[Black Jeebus]

When it comes down to it the Pres actually has very little power to affect changes himself. His rhetoric can cause many changes, but mostly the president (and his entire branch of the gov't) is there to enforce/execute the whims of congress.

[Craig]

The president only proposes the budget. Congress has the final say in any spending the Pres may want to do.

The president can also exercise his power to veto what's put on his desk. Bush has been the only president of recent memory not to use the veto during his term.

If he didn't agree with the budgets placed before him by the republican controlled congress, then he could have vetoed it and said "if you get rid of $X, then I'll be able to let it pass" and the congress would have had to go back to the table as they didn't have the votes to override the veto.

That is an explicit power that the president has and has refused to use.

Craig

[Maeve_Mari]

The president can also exercise his power to veto what's put on his desk. Bush has been the only president of recent memory not to use the veto during his term.

If he didn't agree with the budgets placed before him by the republican controlled congress, then he could have vetoed it and said "if you get rid of $X, then I'll be able to let it pass" and the congress would have had to go back to the table as they didn't have the votes to override the veto.

That is an explicit power that the president has and has refused to use.

Craig

My thought on that: I think Mr. Bush has never read the constitution and probably doesn't even know he has the power to veto!

The Congress tries to stick their appropriations to what their President wants. The budget is a two way process, but with both branches controlled by the same party, the Good Congress wants to stay in favor with the boss and tries to appropriate to their President's budget plan. He really is responsible for the direction of his administration.

[grotto]

I voted for Bush in 2000. This time I'm voting for Kerry on balance-of-power grounds. But Bush still comes closer to fiscal conservatism than he does, going by their records and campaign promises.

alright you! Who are you and what have you done with Inquartata!

[Maeve_Mari]

alright you! Who are you and what have you done with Inquartata!

He said it months ago! Where were you?
The man has a mission.

[Tomas N]

When it comes down to it the Pres actually has very little power to affect changes himself. His rhetoric can cause many changes, but mostly the president (and his entire branch of the gov't) is there to enforce/execute the whims of congress.

Wow. So since we have a Republican Senate and House now, we should be swimming in surpluses. Instead, we have growing spending, shrinking revenues, and a ballooning deficit.

We also have a President who has expanded the powers of the executive branch more than any other prez in recent memory.

Tomas

[MikeHarm]

The problem is that its always tweedledum or tweedledee, and no matter how badly the Republican canidates do, the Democrats are considered worse by anyone calling themselves Republican.

I don't think that either party will salvage the economic situation with government spending, it really seems we're going to rake up trillion after trillion in debt until whatever bad thing will happen if you do it long enough occurrs.

[ReverseLunge]

A simple question to my American friends, Republican or Democrat, on this site:
Watching some of the American people who say that they are "fiscal conservatives" and yet they will support Bush in the Nov. 2 election.

What's wrong with these people? Don't they know that Bush inherited a surplus from Clinton and now the US is in deficit? [...and I'm not talking about the national debt. The US is the world's biggest debtor country; and guess who hold the bulk of the debts: the People's Republic of China, yes, "Red China", and Japan.] Are these people supporting Bush irrespective of his policies, his modus operandi, his lies?

I can't understand theses people: the two points are diametrically opposites.

Can you please enlighten me?

Thank you,
PK

Maybe one day we will be as rich and powerful and as free as Canada. Maybe one day the rich Hong kongnese will immigrate to Canada instead of America.

[MikeHarm]

While you're pushed into learning to reason things out as a fencer because if you don't you die on the strip I think in a lot of cases folks don't reason using logic anymore. It seems like you say some things and its right or wrong based on who gets upset with it or who is saying it or their appearance, or what groups they're aligned with or whatnot.

I had a really good example of that in college. One of my roomates and I were watching some daytime talk shoes. They had this kid who was like this total loser who married this woman who was 40 or something when he was 15, and he did two different talk shows. In one there was a hostile audience and he was all punked out. In the other the kid was wearing a suit, the crowd was all supportive of him.

In case A, my roomate was all going on about what a jerk the guy was and he didn't agree with anything he said.

Case B, he was all supporting the guy and talking about how mean everyone was to him.

He said the exact same things. My roomate just sorta cued into the social context and went with a vibe of wether it was right or wrong, what was actually said didn't matter.

This is the heart of what is wrong with people as I see it. On the other hand its a really great thing for advertisers.