has the US ever had a conservative president??

El_Kabong

it has been brought forth recently that bush is really a liberal b/c of his increase in government and spending....

"Conservatives base their morality on moral objectivism. That is: big government is NEVER okay, welfare is NEVER okay, etc. "



so, if that is the requirements of being a conservative...when have we EVER had a conservative president? a conservative congress?

nixon increased government, gave out corporate welfare....reagan did it, look at how big the war on drugs is...that's a pretty big increase in government, laws prohibiting our freedoms, increased spending (more than we spend on education and a few other dept's...), daddy bush did it, in fact he partly lost the election b/c he INCREASED taxes!

so, when in our history have we had a conservative in power? and since the answer obvioulsy seems like 'never' why do they insist they are the majority when they have never been able to win a single election!?

dthomas

not to sound like a flaming liberal but I believe that guy Clinton cut back some spending when he was in office. So did the first George Bush but he didn't have the great economy backing him up.

norm

off the top of my head i'm gonna say reagan came closest.....but until you have a congress and executive that are on the same page there will never be a true conservative/liberal govt.....:)

El_Kabong

cutback wrote:

off the top of my head i'm gonna say reagan came closest.....but until you have a congress and executive that are on the same page there will never be a true conservative/liberal govt.....:)

http://encarta.msn.com/encyclopedia_761560259_2/Ronald_Reagan.html


Another major exception was funding for the military. Unwilling to weaken the U.S. armed forces, Reagan proposed no cuts in the federal defense budget. During the Reagan presidency defense spending actually increased sharply—from $134 billion in 1980 to $290 billion in 1988.

These exemptions to the budget cuts and the loss of federal revenue from tax cuts created difficulties in balancing the federal budget. As a result, the government borrowed extensively to pay its bills. Government debt rose from $908 billion in 1980 to $2.6 trillion in 1988. Much of this money came from abroad, especially from Japan. Borrowing money to pay the debt caused the government to spend a greater proportion of its budget on interest payments for loans. In 1980, before Reagan took office, the government set aside less than 10 percent of its budget for interest payments. That number had climbed to more than 15 percent by 1992, the final year in the presidency of Reagan’s successor, George Bush, who had continued many of Reagan’s economic policies.


Reagan promised to balance the budget within his first term. Instead, the annual deficit rose from $79 billion to $212 billion in that first term — and the Reagan years added $1.9 trillion to the federal debt.

he also gave out a lot of corporate welfare and cut their taxes a good bit...as well as starting the war on drugs which limited our freedoms more, allowed anonymous tips to be enough for search warrants and just look at how many government jobs and spending goes to it!

http://encarta.msn.com/encyclopedia_761571000_2/George_H_W_Bush.html
Reagan's policies, however, often tested Bush's loyalty. As president, Reagan cut taxes, especially for higher-income individuals and corporations, and approved the biggest peacetime increase in military spending. Budget deficits (the annual gap between tax revenues and expenditures) soared and the national debt, after accounting for inflation, more than doubled in eight years.

El_Kabong

dthomas wrote:

not to sound like a flaming liberal but I believe that guy Clinton cut back some spending when he was in office. So did the first George Bush but he didn't have the great economy backing him up.

http://encarta.msn.com/encyclopedia_761571000_2/George_H_W_Bush.html
In February 1989 Bush released a comprehensive plan to bail out the industry, and Congress reacted rapidly, rewriting oversight regulations and creating the Resolution Trust Corporation to take over bankrupt savings and loan associations and sell off their assets. Ultimately the bailouts cost taxpayers hundreds of billions of dollars.

soulsinging

El_Kabong wrote:

"Conservatives base their morality on moral objectivism. That is: big government is NEVER okay, welfare is NEVER okay, etc. "

so, if that is the requirements of being a conservative...when have we EVER had a conservative president? a conservative congress?

not exactly a proper definition of conservatism.

CorporateWhore

The reason it is so difficult to decrease the size of government is because social welfare spending is an entitlement. When the liberals of the new deal started it, they knew that people would expect their money back someday and they didn't adequately anticipate how it would work 100 years from that time.

People are entitled to government programs once they are approved. That means they cannot be denied. That means that every time the government approves another individual for welfare spending, one more person is not removed from the list but added! Only growth, no shrinking.

You see, when liberals start a program there is no intention to see it end. It will continue forever. Not only will it continue, but it will grow exponentially. Why? Because poor people breed poor people. When given no incentive to escape their dependence on government programs, poor people will choose to remain in that lifestyle.

If a poor person is given the choice between working extra hard in a construction job or a field, or producing another child and getting a tax credit, they will produce the child because that's easier to do. All you have to do is fuck.

CorporateWhore

Conservatives are opposed to big government. They are not opposed to wise and virtuous government. Small government does not equal virtuous government. Therefore, conservatives are only opposed to government when it seeks to provide unholy services to us.

More liberty does not equal more virtue. Conservatives identify a stricter limit to the amount of liberty people can have to make them truly free. A person that is addicted to meth is not a free person, though they may have chosen to become addicted to it. Therefore, government steps in to help that person from themselves. That is a virtuous government.

Government should not unnecessarily spend money on slovenly and weak-minded practices.

gue_barium

CorporateWhore wrote:

they will produce the child because that's easier to do. All you have to do is fuck.

I seem to recall that's not so easy for you.

Rhinocerous Surprise

CorporateWhore wrote:

Conservatives are opposed to big government. They are not opposed to wise and virtuous government. Small government does not equal virtuous government. Therefore, conservatives are only opposed to government when it seeks to provide unholy services to us.

More liberty does not equal more virtue. Conservatives identify a stricter limit to the amount of liberty people can have to make them truly free. A person that is addicted to meth is not a free person, though they may have chosen to become addicted to it. Therefore, government steps in to help that person from themselves. That is a virtuous government.

Government should not unnecessarily spend money on slovenly and weak-minded practices.

You say the government should step in to help a meth addict out, who has gotten him/herself into that situation. Yet you said before that the government shouldn't have helped out the Katrina victims who stayed in their homes. Which is it? Does the government help people out or not?

CorporateWhore

Rhinocerous Surprise wrote:

You say the government should step in to help a meth addict out, who has gotten him/herself into that situation. Yet you said before that the government shouldn't have helped out the Katrina victims who stayed in their homes. Which is it? Does the government help people out or not?

The government steps in by making certain drugs illegal.

Rhinocerous Surprise

CorporateWhore wrote:

The government steps in by making certain drugs illegal.

We both know that does nothing to curb addiction. Should a virtuous government do anything more than make the drugs illegal, or is that overstepping it's boundaries?

El_Kabong

CorporateWhore wrote:

The reason it is so difficult to decrease the size of government is because social welfare spending is an entitlement. When the liberals of the new deal started it, they knew that people would expect their money back someday and they didn't adequately anticipate how it would work 100 years from that time.

People are entitled to government programs once they are approved. That means they cannot be denied. That means that every time the government approves another individual for welfare spending, one more person is not removed from the list but added! Only growth, no shrinking.

You see, when liberals start a program there is no intention to see it end. It will continue forever. Not only will it continue, but it will grow exponentially. Why? Because poor people breed poor people. When given no incentive to escape their dependence on government programs, poor people will choose to remain in that lifestyle.

If a poor person is given the choice between working extra hard in a construction job or a field, or producing another child and getting a tax credit, they will produce the child because that's easier to do. All you have to do is fuck.

actually, for a lot of social services like food stamps you have to reapply every 60-90 days to receive benefits...not sure where you got this idea no one is ever allowed to be taken off? that's almost laughable the stuff ppl will buy into to justify things! also, making mroe kids just to get another tax credit is just as laughable. the limit is 2. if someone has a 3rd kid they will receive NO increase in their tax credit from when they had their 2nd.

i don't understand:
you are against the unholy act of using tax money so a poor kid can eat but you are FOR the righteous act of using tax money to arrest, prosecute and imprisone someone b/c they use drugs?

what about bush trying to bail out the savings and loan institutions? why did they qualify? why does corporate welfare qualify? giving money to multi million/billion $ companies isn't unholy but giving it to poor ppl is?


Originally Posted by CorporateWhore

You see, when liberals start a program there is no intention to see it end. It will continue forever.

unlike the war on drugs or the war on terror, eh???

Vedd Hedd

CorporateWhore wrote:

You see, when liberals start a program there is no intention to see it end. It will continue forever.

hehehe

hippiemom

I suppose it depends on what your definition of "conservative" is. This one at least believed in conserving things.

Skitch Patterson

i suppose the absolute strictest sense of the word "conservative" would prohibit them from being in government at all, as government is going to require some amount of social aid and freedom restrictions.

my2hands

i have always argued that Clinton was more of a technical "conservative" than the last 3 republican criminals

the word conservative as it is used today as a poltical label has lost all resemblence to it's actual meaning or ideology...IMO


btw, welcome back kabong!

a tad dry around here without you and abook...

El_Kabong

El_Kabong wrote:

actually, for a lot of social services like food stamps you have to reapply every 60-90 days to receive benefits...not sure where you got this idea no one is ever allowed to be taken off? that's almost laughable the stuff ppl will buy into to justify things! also, making mroe kids just to get another tax credit is just as laughable. the limit is 2. if someone has a 3rd kid they will receive NO increase in their tax credit from when they had their 2nd.

i don't understand:
you are against the unholy act of using tax money so a poor kid can eat but you are FOR the righteous act of using tax money to arrest, prosecute and imprisone someone b/c they use drugs?

what about bush trying to bail out the savings and loan institutions? why did they qualify? why does corporate welfare qualify? giving money to multi million/billion $ companies isn't unholy but giving it to poor ppl is?


Originally Posted by CorporateWhore

You see, when liberals start a program there is no intention to see it end. It will continue forever.

unlike the war on drugs or the war on terror, eh???

actually, what i said was a little wrong....

techiically they WOULD get a tax increase for a 3rd child, but it would only be something like $30, but i highly doubt anyone would have a kid just to get an extra $30 at tax time

and i realize this isn't the greatest definition of 'conservative' but it's corporatewhore's, so i would like him to show when we've ever had a president that fit this definition of his

lalalalaaaaaaaa

El_Kabong wrote:

it has been brought forth recently that bush is really a liberal b/c of his increase in government and spending....

"Conservatives base their morality on moral objectivism. That is: big government is NEVER okay, welfare is NEVER okay, etc. "



so, if that is the requirements of being a conservative...when have we EVER had a conservative president? a conservative congress?

nixon increased government, gave out corporate welfare....reagan did it, look at how big the war on drugs is...that's a pretty big increase in government, laws prohibiting our freedoms, increased spending (more than we spend on education and a few other dept's...), daddy bush did it, in fact he partly lost the election b/c he INCREASED taxes!

so, when in our history have we had a conservative in power? and since the answer obvioulsy seems like 'never' why do they insist they are the majority when they have never been able to win a single election!?

All the presidents you mentioned are neo-conservatives imo, meaning not really conservative. Eisenhower would be an example of a more conservative president. He got handed the New Deal stuff, and he made adjustments where he thought necessary (sometimes increasing spending, sometimes decreasing). But his economic policies in general would be considered conservative I think. You can't talk in absolutes like "conservatives NEVER want to increase government spending". That doesn't apply to the real world, everyone knows that. Being conservative means you're just apprehensive about increasing government spending, and will consider many other alternatives before doing so.

chromiam

Let's put everyone in their neat little boxes so we can feel better about ourselves...