It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.


Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.


The cost of yet another "conservative" government

page: 1
<<   2 >>

log in


posted on Feb, 18 2009 @ 05:42 PM
The new millenium started off with $150 billion in surplus and for the first time in history the $5.7 trillion debt seemed to be on the decrease... for the first time in decades. It appears that one president actually did america good economically for once. I continously hear this excuse that this mess in part was clintons fault, all I know is that this is how the millenium started.

What do we have here come the 2000 elections... instead of the chance to continue the policies that were evidently leading america economically stable folks decided to go with another Bush. No no... nevermind the fact Bush snr and his buddy reagan added 3.2 trillion to the current debt, never mind reagan who started the sky rocketing debt, Bush was the choice. Why? well Clinton was "immoral" and america needed its "family values" back.

I mean seriously now, this guy bush jnr ran on the bases that his daddy was good friends with reagan, whatever the heck that meant, and that Reagan was an all uniting "patriotic president" with true conservative ideals. I mean it didnt matter that Bush got the upper hand from his daddy, got the golden spoon, neither did it matter that Reagan was all talk... no no to conservatives the "ideals" were enough to fully support the man... for some reason though Obama is some how different.. but I guess thats what partisan and personal values does to one, they dont seem to hold two different stones in the same light.

Unfortunatly not only did the conservatives fall for the "moral conservative my daddy was reagans friend" BS, the reagan/clinton democrats... and yes clinton demcrats are reagan democrats, fell for it as well... and by a mere few 1000 votes, in a state where bushes brother was governor, at the fact Bushies cuzzy was head of one of the voting counting buildings, the fact bushies former presidential daddy had connections, Bush won. The man won the presidency.

It didnt matter that the nation was on the up, that there was a friggin surplus after decades, that the policies were working, the nation opted for the same old conservative BS that got two of the other presidents into office during the 80s.. the ones that started the sky rocketing debt, the one that this flawed middle eastern policy could be traced back to. All this in part for some affair clinton had... unfriggen believable... and by then conservatives were happy to impeach the man but didnt have the balls to do it to somebody who committed an impeachable offense in the billions, with 1000s of american lives gone.

So now theres this attempt to vindicate Bush from any of this mess and pin the blame on the democrats. Now Im game to name the faults of the dems, republicans and "non republican" conservatives are never game to man up to theirs. Seriously I dont buy the "im not a republican" garbage thats going on around here as well, you can take a elephant and paint it tiger stripes it will still be a elephant to me... the same elephant that fell for the garbage over the last 8years. This administration is barely a month old and its been blamed for this mess, no seriousy the bulk of this mess is now been put squarly on an administration barely a month old... and the congress..."oh that democrat congress". I mean seriously the denial STINKS.

The Bush tax cuts
Typical of all republicans, bush offered tax cuts as the solution to bring forth an economic era beyond that of Clintons. Now I like my tax cuts, but not if costs me in the future, not during a recession where I know it will drag me down come the next year or so. Thus far, Bushes tax cuts cost us $1 trillion and hasnt done nothing but contribute to the mess we're in. Instead of improving the economy then give out tax cuts, Bush decidedd to go cowboy on us, and thus far economists have proven these tax cuts have been nothing a liability to the economy. Some even estimate the cost to be around $1.7 trillion.

Talk about elites? How about the fact those $1 trillion tax cuts benefitted the wealthy in this nation... and yet its only now conservative members want to go on about spending?

The iraq war
The war to start with was lie, we had not reason to be there, the evidence submitted by the Bush administration was misleading and the evidence regarding the interests of Bush personally in that nation, and politically to the government, was blatantly obvious. Yet despite this, despite the lies and corruption, despite the cost, the vast majority if not all republicans and conservatives outright supported the war. The was not outrage in the spending, there was no book waving on the costs, there was no talk of elitists among conservatives, and there was no respect for the fellow americans who disagreed with it... no no this was a conservative in power... and thus far the war has cost us $860 billion and about $200 million per day been spent on the war. We continue to hear the outrage about a package for america herself, yet we dont hear anything from conservatives, libertarians and ron paulers regarding $200 million a day going out of the country into another with no real reason.

Military spending

Yes just like the "true" conservative during the 80s, Bush as spent more on the military and defense than most other presidents. By the beginning of 2007 it was estimated the total amount spent on the military by this administration came to over $500 billion (excluding assistance for Afghanistan where the real hunt for terrorism is).

Now I fully understand america is the vulnerable democracy, but we trounce the second largest military spenders (China and Russia) by over five times their budgets on their militaries.... we dont appear to be in the friggin cold war any longer and to be frank this doesnt hold up the original conservative principal of foreign neutrality unless declaration of war.

$1 trillion deficit

Yes you hear it, the man cost us $1 trillion in deficit over his las 8years, and since republicans and conservatives alike here so enjoy referencing congress here for the last two years lets evenly divide that, $300 to the democrats and $700 billion to the "fiscally conservative" republican majority and Bush administrations for the last 6 out of those 8years.

Dramatic increases in government spending

An estimated 61% rise in spending since 2001 was estimated under the Bush administration:

Government has evidently grown as a result of this spending, and while I have not added the costs of assistance to the New Orleans, New york following 911 and Afghanistan, this still shows the cost this Bush administration had done. I have made numerous attempts to exclude the democrat congress, and included them in some aspects, and still still it shows where the bulk of this debt and this spending comes from.

It is not just the faliure of yet another conservative administration in government, it is the faliure of the american people as well. Who are we to question assistance to the larger corporations and the elites if we ourselves, with our overspending and our neglect for the prior government, to request a bail out in the form of tax cuts that do nothing to solve the crises as a whole?

Im not shocked about the costs of the stimulus packages, because to be frank investment in america is the only solution now... the "tax cut" deal is old and outdated, just another conservative ploy where your taxes dont really get cut, you just pay more in the future. What I dont get is the disgust from the rightwingers here regarding billions for America, while back in 2003 billions to another country was considered "patriotic"

[edit on 18-2-2009 by southern_Guardian]

posted on Feb, 18 2009 @ 05:52 PM
I think you should know that Republicans had control of Congress during the Clinton administration.

Also, there was no 'surplus', third liberal spending by a republican doesn't make it conservative. Fourth Obama just added a trillion dollars to the deficit this year already and he hasn't even been in office for a month.

6th the dems were in control of congress for the past two years. 7th, Bush was repeatedly trying to get congress to order the investigations of Fannie and Freddie.

Conservatism is of no fault in this whole debacle. Trying to say liberal spending is conservative is being intellectually dishonest.

posted on Feb, 18 2009 @ 05:57 PM
How freaking long are some of you going to dwell on BUSH?




Bush cannot hurt us now.

The new administration and congress CAN HURT US.

What is the point of this? Why don't you make a thread criticizing this administration?

They are the ones in power now.

posted on Feb, 18 2009 @ 06:33 PM

Originally posted by Hastobemoretolife
I think you should know that Republicans had control of Congress during the Clinton administration.

Your saying the president has no decision making in america? Shall we hold every administration by their congress? In that case the 6 years out of the 8 of this bush administration, where the bulk of the spending came from, is from republicans.

Also, there was no 'surplus', third liberal spending by a republican doesn't make it conservative.

There was $150 billion in the tank, ready to be spent buddy. Sure there was still debt, but there was $150 billion of pure funds available. Why the excuses?

Fourth Obama just added a trillion dollars to the deficit this year already and he hasn't even been in office for a month.

The only way to solve this mess is to invest in america. Obama didnt spent billions on a war of lies or on the military, or on this tax cut ploy, his spending it in an effort to prevent the situation from getting worse.

What do you want him to do? Sit around and allow this crap to happen? We all know tax cuts are a joke, and here you are talking about how investment in america during this recession is fiscally irrisponsible, and yet to deny how irrisponsible the iraq war was, or the cost, or the fact that money is going to another nation, not ours, a war that had nothing to do with 911.

How can you sit there and deny it? Here you are, telling me conservatives have nothing to do with it. What a joke.

6th the dems were in control of congress for the past two years.

And read the OP again, where I make a fair account of that. Your clearly not bothering to read it, and your clearly in denial.

Bush was repeatedly trying to get congress to order the investigations of Fannie and Freddie.

Bush had 8years to regulate the market, instead when he came into office, deregulated it. This mess goes further than fannie and freedie buddy.

Conservatism is of no fault in this whole debacle.

Right. Why dont you counter my OP bit by bit and say why. Simply denying this isnt really something to hold on to.

posted on Feb, 18 2009 @ 06:36 PM
Im seriously waiting for the neocon apologists to come in here and flood this thread. This entire forum is filled with neocon apologists making every attempt to pin this on the democrats who took power two years ago.

Tell me where exactly congress overspent? I dont want here the stimulus, we are yet to see the years of its effects. Before october, I want those here to tell me where exactly congress cause this mess.

I dare you fellas to justify the war in Iraq, the over spending in military and the Bush tax cuts. Seriously do that for once instead of this talk about "fiscal conservatism".

Justify the war and the overspending before you justify your "disgust" and "civil war" chants over the stimulus package.

[edit on 18-2-2009 by southern_Guardian]

posted on Feb, 18 2009 @ 06:48 PM
reply to post by southern_Guardian

Wow wake up buddy..

The issues arising now are the effects of causes from 20 some years ago..

How we address them today will effect us down the road..

And Bush didn't take office with a Surplus, he took office with a crashing economy..

And finally, almost all "real" Conservatives viewed Bush as a Socialist. A religious socialist, but a socialist none the less.

posted on Feb, 18 2009 @ 09:02 PM
Here read this article on the 'Clinton Surplus' myth it is backed up with treasury data.

Here is another article showing how many regulations Bush actually approved of and imposed.

Just because somebody claims that they are a republican or whatever it is doesn't make it so.

Bush most definitely not a conservative. He hasn't done anything that even resembles conservatism.

If you don't know what conservatism is then I don't see what the point of this thread is. Especially since you say, "You can't wait for all the neo-con apologist..."

To me it just seems like you are trying to pick a fight, for what reason I have no clue.

I might be a conservative but I'm not a neo-con.

[edit on 18-2-2009 by Hastobemoretolife]

posted on Feb, 18 2009 @ 09:11 PM
Looting Social Security is what allowed Clinton to appear to have a surplus - or did you forget that part?

Bush took office during a recession and pulled us back out of it.

Can't justify the war, but I will say, it is largely because of it that bush spending was so high. But what are you going to do, once the war was declared, we had an obligation to finance it - unless you wanted even more casualties.

Also, during Bush's 1 term, he did not veto even 1 bill that was presented to him. Since the Dems were in control, look back to all that 1st term legislation and you may find some of the causative actions to many problems.

And.... before you berate Bush for not vetoing anything, that was his way of showing true bi-partisanship. He TRUSTED the members of Congress in that if they agreed and got a bill as far as his desk, then he wouldn't stop it.

posted on Feb, 18 2009 @ 09:17 PM
Yeah, another Bush-bashing thread! Some of you guys just can't let go. I don't seem to see a beating a dead horse emoticon...
I guess bashing Bush, Conservatives and Republicans is a way to distract from the 'wonderful' start of the Obama experiment.

posted on Feb, 18 2009 @ 09:18 PM
Here is a quote that I feel fits Clinton surplus BS perfectly. It was all based on assumptions and accounting tricks.

Anyone with half a wit would realize that the only way an institution as mammoth as the Federal Government could go from deficits to surpluses, was by employing dubious accounting methods. Along with the statistics that support the PR hype that we are in the middle of a "boom" because some people have made profits from the stock market bubble, it is conventional wisdom that the "wise" men running the country have inflation under control too. The reality that there is no boom, that there is no surplus, is as lost as the truth about Bill Clinton's honesty. His most recent travesty, the Cross Country Poverty Tour, is another example of his superficial means of addressing significant social issues. The president is a photo-op waiting to happen.)

Verifying this is as simple as accessing the U.S. Treasury (see note about this link below) website where the national debt is updated daily and a history of the debt since January 1993 can be obtained. Considering the government's fiscal year ends on the last day of September each year, and considering Clinton's budget proposal in 1993 took effect in October 1993 and concluded September 1994 (FY1994), here's the national debt at the end of each year of Clinton Budgets:

Who controls the purse?

Who has the authority to allow the President to war?

Who gave Bush everything he asked for?

Point blank, both parties are to blame. Both are two peas in a pod and had plenty of time to change course but chose not to for whatever reason.

posted on Feb, 18 2009 @ 09:21 PM
Was that surplus before or after Clinton released revised numbers AFTER the 2000 election?

Pulling the political party card is very much like pulling the race card - always easy to debunk. The simple fact is most politicians suck. Most recently, the dems have had control of congress for the last two years and accomplished next to nothing. This, after Pelosi and Reid promised major change two years ago. Congress overrode two vetoes in the last two years.

A pork barrel water works bill in 2007 and a anti-private insurance Medicare bill in 2008. Fact is, both parties voted in the majority to override both vetos.

posted on Feb, 18 2009 @ 09:21 PM

Just thought some people might be forgetful of Carter's legacy.

And I see Obama being the next Carter by the way he's starting off.

posted on Feb, 18 2009 @ 09:23 PM
The best thing about the non partisan shows how much of a fraud they both are because they expose how big of gigantic liars and thieves politicians are!

Thanks hardcore DEMS/REPS. You exposed each other for what they both really are....


posted on Feb, 18 2009 @ 10:04 PM
so let me get this straight, you are saying Obama's "stimulus" plan is the only way to help america, yet you complain about Bush spending money?????? haha.

#1 Bush is not a conservative
#2 the FIRST "stimulus" plan was passed because democrats have the congress
#3 almost every republican voted against BOTH stimulus plans.
#4 your wrong on every point

posted on Feb, 19 2009 @ 02:15 PM

Originally posted by stevegmu
Yeah, another Bush-bashing thread! Some of you guys just can't let go.

The man lied to us regarding the war, cost us trillions and at the moment this war of lies in Iraq is $200 million a day, and here you are, tell me "I cant let it go"? What is wrong with you? Why cant you wake up and see the man lied, he wasted out hard earned taxes just to benefit himself and his buddies and here you are telling me "I just wont let it go".

This is the reason why we're in the economic mess, why we all have been cheated for the last 8years, because people like you allow this to happen. It is voters like you who couldnt give a damn about whether you'v been lied to, whether your nation has been ripped off, all for the sake of ideology.

Maybe we deserve the crap we're in.

posted on Feb, 19 2009 @ 02:18 PM

Originally posted by Anonymous ATS

Just thought some people might be forgetful of Carter's legacy.

And I see Obama being the next Carter by the way he's starting off.

Im sorry but the Carter crap is just a lame attempt by righties to put blame for the last few decades. The man wasnt the one that started this skyrocketing debt we're in, Reagan was. The anger towards carter from right stemmed from the fact Carter didnt play "cowboy" in the middle east, which in that we're not suppose to.

By the way, why dont you do comparisons between Bush and Carter, and tell me where exactly Carter cuts the cake. I hear one off comments from you fellas regarding "carter" or the "congress of 2years" yet I dont hear and substance.

posted on Feb, 19 2009 @ 02:29 PM

Originally posted by jam321
Who controls the purse?

In that case the 6 out of the 8years of th crap that happened under this administration will be put squarly on the repugs. Infact, I would like to hear where exactly the dem congress contributed to this debt before October.

Who has the authority to allow the President to war?

Who's support is needed for that authority? Do you think that just because there is the word "majority" next to a party they have full authority? Bare in mind the Democrats had to go head over heels for just 3 republicans. It takes more than the simple "majority" to get support.

And dont give me that crap about how this war is partly the democrats fault.

1. The republicans had majority at the time.
2. The reasons and intelligence were purposefully flawed, he lied to the people at that time about his intentions in that he got support jam.

The fact you folks can scream civil war over a stimulus for america that is yet to be given a chance over an unconstitunal war of lies, thats cost us 100s of billions, thats costing us $200 million a day, its just unbelievable. This is the mentality of todays conservatives.

Who gave Bush everything he asked for?

Read above. The last 6 out of the 8years was majority republican. Where exactly did this democrat congress over spend and step over the line, and im talking about before october when the crises became recognized. Id like to know.

Point blank, both parties are to blame. Both are two peas in a pod and had plenty of time to change course but chose not to for whatever reason.

Damn straight the dems have blame in this, but you got your head in a hole if your going to put majority blame for this mess on the dems, or purposefully neglect the last years of support for a costly unconstitutional war of lies and overspending, then shout foul over a stimulus and go liberal bashing.

Glad yall see bush as not a conservative, what a way for former neocon supporters to distance themselves from a former godsent man to them.

posted on Feb, 19 2009 @ 02:30 PM
reply to post by David9176

Why are Dems still dwelling on Bush? Because up until the primaries Republicans were still dwelling on Clinton....and the new guy hasn't even been in the house for 30 days yet...and his attempts to do something to thwart this crisis have been met with hurdles and hoops by duplicitous Republicans who refuse to rally behind the president and try something new because they'd rather continue the failed policies of their fallen heroes and cry treason against those who didn't immediately rally behind theirs...but ended up supporting him, relatively, in the end...

posted on Feb, 19 2009 @ 02:35 PM
Why aint yall countering the OP?

I listed where the overspending was from this administration and their republican followers, I purposefully kept the dem congress exclude from the OP, and when I did include them I made a fair analysis. The overspending above was by support of a republican majority. Why aint yall countering the OP? Whats wrong? Why are you ignoring the numbers above?

Seriously yall go on about the democrats congress overspending and having a hand in this, where did the dems contribute to the over $10 trillion debt before October? I dont care what you think of stimulus, after the economic distaster this mess was well into its growth before those packages... so I ask yall again, where did the democratic congress over the last 2 years contribute to these trillions. While your at it, totally absolve that spending of republican support, or founding, if you want to play that game.

posted on Feb, 19 2009 @ 02:37 PM
reply to post by David9176

When its a the mess of fault conservative hypocrites, its always both sides david. Where the hell was accountability of "both sides" during Carter? or Bush snr? or LBJ?

Let me tell you whats the deal here David. When this mess is purely source from righty, theres this attempt to either make excuses and shift the blame partly to the dems, or put the total blame on them, with one line comments.

Give me brake david.

new topics

top topics

<<   2 >>

log in