Republicans show they can out-Democrat Democrats

Houston Chronicle ^ | Dec. 9, 2003, 12:30AM | Editorial Boards

[jsbankston]

It would appear that the Comical's numbers are coming from the Untra-Liberal Heritage Foundation and thus cannot be trusted.

[Protagoras]

Could that be called politics rather than ideology?

Just for the record, I never called it ideology. It is a tactic, a poor one.

[bc2]

you have still not refuted one single aspect of the article.

not that I or anyone else actually expected anything less than your "we're not as bad as the really bad guys so you should keep electing us no matter how bad we are" mantra.

[Dane]

JMO, you are closer to the mentally incompetent former freepers than any other group

Oh the pain, the heartache. I have been cast out by head Libertarian cheerleader on FR. Oh how will I survive such a death from a thousand cuts.

To all lurkers the above passage is sarcasm towards Protagoras's meglomania.

[Dane]

you have still not refuted one single aspect of the article

And you all have not refuted the source.

Oh I forgot on 12/9/03, the Houston Chronicle editorial board has become more conservative than Ronald Reagan, nevermind.

Oh well you all have proven why the joke of people buying the Brooklyn Bridge is still going after all these years.

[The_Victor]

Maybe they didn't mention deficits because the government was running a surplus during the last few years of the 1990s?

The Clinton administration showed $200bil from FY93 or FY94 ad infinitum. Not a peep from the Comical at that time.

[Digger]

Lets' just throw this in : "CBO Director Douglas Holtz-Eakin yesterday estimated that the new Medicare prescription-drug law will cost more than $1 trillion in its second decade, from 2014 to 2023, and could soar to $2 trillion during that period if Congress revisits the new law and fills in the coverage gaps". Per the Wahington Times.If you want to read on here's one:(http://batr.org/wrack/120803.html) "Why The GOP are Cowards"

[azhenfud]

"...Clinton has been the most conservative President in at least 30 years..."

I'm laughing, but facts are facts concerning FISCAL CONSERVATISM and the Bush Administration's liberal spending habits (although I must concede Bush wouldn't be as guilty if either house demonstrated some measure of restraint). If that criteria alone were all that makes one "conservative", you've a good point - and Clinton would rank as more conservative - fiscally. However, if one compares the current admin's spending with all others since WWII, based on spending alone, Bush's admin would rank among the highest, most liberal of spenders.

[The_Victor]

Actual number from the FY2004 budget.

Federal Budget outlays for FY2004 (in millions)
2001 ............................................................................... 1,863,895
2002 ............................................................................... 2,010,975
2003 estimate ................................................................ 2,140,377

increase from2001-2003………………………………….. 276,482
55% (presumed WOT cost)………………………………. 152,065.1
total deficit for the three years…………………………….-334,662

[optimistically_conservative]

Just for the record, I never called it ideology.

That's true, and I apologize if it came across as putting "words in your post". It is a tactic, a poor one.

Yes and no. It is a tactic and perhaps a reprehensible one for those that recognize it when it is being employed. However, it's a time-tested and proven effective one for a long time now.

Ergo my distinction between politics and ideology. Politics is an evangelical art come election campaigns. Ideology is an internal belief. Conservatism is ideological, Republicans are politicians. I tend to vote for conservatives. I'm guessing you do too. I'm not so naive to be surprised, or infuriated, when conservative Republicans act like politicians.

Does that make sense?

[Protagoras]

Any lurkers have long ago drawn their conclusions about your mental stablity.

[bc2]

Again, nothing from you. We could go on for hours. So what if the HC is liberal? What does that have to do with the conservative think thanks where they got the numbers? Oh yeah, well those are ivory tower beltway libertarian nerds, as you have said. They don't count (Heratige, libertarian? CATO maybe, but they are still conservative.)

So basically everyone that reads this thread knows that you have proved about a dozen times that you have nothing of any substance whatsoever to say. You call someone else a cheerleader, buddy you should take a look in the mirror. The skirt and pom-poms are not flattering.

[azhenfud]

"In case you didn't catch it, my point was that the Comical never cared about deficits before 2001."

You're quite comical yourself, as prior to 2000, there was estimated to have been a "budget surplus", not a deficit. Naturally the "Comical" wouldn't have "cared" about huge deficits during then....

[Protagoras]

Does that make sense?

Yep

[The_Victor]

You're quite comical yourself, as prior to 2000, there was estimated to have been a "budget surplus", not a deficit. Naturally the "Comical" wouldn't have "cared" about huge deficits during then....

You're so clever. See post 106

[k2blader]

Did conservatives really vote for Perot? The Perot plank seemed to be made up of "moderates".

Of course, "conservative" is such a subjective word these days...

[optimistically_conservative]

However, if one compares the current admin's spending with all others since WWII, based on spending alone, Bush's admin would rank among the highest, most liberal of spenders.

If one compares the spending without the amount tied to 9/11 and WoT how does he compare? Or conversely, how does his spending compare with another administration that suffered an attack on the continental US and conducted a subsequent war at the start of the cyclical downturn in the economy (and in the first year of his first term)?

I don't consider myself a Bushbot, and I'm not happy with certain alliances he has made in his "compassionate conservatism" campaign and "irrational exhuberance" leading up to post-war Iraq.

But I've got to tell you, overall I'm impressed enough with him and how he's done to think he deserves my vote for re-election.

But I'd feel much better if he started showing me he can get closer to a tax-cut-and-cut-spending administration in his second term.

[Tamzee]

Ahhh.. no agenda to this column, nope.

Journalists are going to be doing everything they can to drive support away from Bush next year... and our purest conservatives appear willing to help them do it.

Our Constitution does not provide for a King that can cater to a small percentage of the population. If we want hard conservative values enacted in the Oval Office, we have to spend our time educating the masses of voters who are demanding the spending. I think Bush has done brilliantly given the demographics he has to work with and the financial calamities that greeted him as President.

[kevao]

Of course, "conservative" is such a subjective word these days...

No kidding. Now we're supposed to believe that creating massive federal entitlement programs is a "conservative" policy.

[Ron H.]

... Now we're supposed to believe that creating massive federal entitlement programs is a "conservative" policy.

So true and such a sad commetary too and an omen of things to come I'm mighty afraid.