Replies

Not always true. Take President Reagan for example. He was a good conservative on social issues. Yet during his 8 years, spending by federal government TRIPLED. He did not use his veto power enough to stop the democrat congress. It was the beginning of national debt explosion.

Next case...Bush-43. Pretty good on social issues! But he began another entitlement (prescription drugs) when the country was already burdened with Medicare, Medicaid, and 100 different forms of welfare benefits. Then he went along with big bank bailout. And increased spending by Dept. of Education. We just can’t afford anymore such morons regardless of how conservative on social issues.

Now the national debt is so high, Federal Reserve can’t even increase interest rates in line with inflation. Because the annual deficit will rocket up with interest payments on national debt. Printing money has never worked in every country where tried. Observe conditions in Japan. That is where we are headed. It will be the demise of this country. A bankrupt country can not defend anything.

I will support any candidate in 2016 who has the spine to cut federal spending. Because I look at long term.

I will support any candidate in 2016 who has the spine to cut federal spending. Because I look at long term.

Both your examples were fallacious examples from the perspective of being the "complete package" where conservatives are concerned.

G.W.B. because he never was a fiscal conservative, ever.

Reagan WAS the "complete package" where being a conservative was concerned, but, he never had a Republican House of Representatives. You know, that part of congress that is supposed to have the power of the purse where all legislation is supposed to start.

If with the spending tripling, he was still able to cut the size of various parts of the Federal government more than 5% and closer to 10% in some cases.

If you are going to present your case, present it with an "Apples to Apples" comparison and not an "Apples to Tire Iron" comparison.