Say Anything Blog

Would true conservatives countenance the fiscal rape of their children and grandchildren?

One thing the Bush Administration clearly has been very good at is focusing the attention of the press (and by extension the American people) on issues that they want to highlight.  This has had the effect of advancing the Bush agenda, but has had the added effect of deflecting focus away from things that the Administration does not want to highlight.  One of those issues is clearly the rampant, runaway spending of your tax dollars by Bush and the Republican majority congress.  At this point there can be no doubt that, as they try to focus your attention on issues like stem cells and Supreme Court nominations, Bush and the Republican Congress are spending us all into a hole from which it will take us, our children and our grandchildren years to recover.

You don’t need to take my word for this, nor the words of any democrat or Bush-hater.  You need only to read what conservatives like George Will are saying, or the people at conservative think tanks like the Heritage Foundation and the Cato Institute.  The Cato Institute recently completed a report on the spending habits of all US presidents during the last 40 years.  If you’re interested in reading the report I’ve included a link at the end of this post.

If you want to continue to believe that Bush and Congressional Republicans are “on your side” or if you care only about saving stem cells and banning gay marriage perhaps you should read no further.  But if you’re interested in the truth and are concerned about your financial well-being and that of your children, perhaps you should read on.  Here’s some of what the Cato Institute report had to say about presidential spending over the last 40 years:

All presidents presided over net increases in spending.  As it turns out George W. Bush is one of the biggest spenders of them all.  In fact he is an even bigger spender than Lyndon B. Johnson in terms of discretionary spending.

The increase in discretionary spending in Bush’s first term was 48.5% in nominal terms.  That’s more than twice as large as the increase in discretionary spending during Clinton’s entire 2 terms (21.6%) and higher than Lyndon B. Johnson’s entire discretionary spending spree (48.3%).

Adjusting the budget trends for inflation Bush looks even worse; his spending rate is much higher then Lyndon Johnson’s.  In other words, Bush expanded federal non-entitlement programs in his first term almost twice as fast each year as Lyndon Johnson did during his entire presidency.

George W. Bush is the biggest spending president of the last 40 years in both the defense and discretionary spending categories by a long shot.  He beats Johnson by almost 4% in defense spending growth and more than 3% in domestic discretionary spending growth.

And conservative columnist George Will points out that in his column today that federal spending has grown twice as fast under President Bush and congressional Republicans as under President Clinton.  And with respect to the argument that this profligacy is related to 9/11 and homeland security, Will and the conservative think tanks have noted that over 65 percent of the spending increase is unrelated to national security.
Will further reports that Congressional Republicans (who achieved their majority by promising fiscal discipline) have presided over an orgy of pork spending with your tax dollars the likes of which have never been seen before. In 1991, the 546 pork projects in the 13 appropriation bills cost $3.1 billion. In 2005, the 13,997 pork projects cost $27.3 billion.

You may support Bush and the congressional Republicans because of some vague promise of “progress” on social issues with which you and the Republicans agree.  In that case perhaps you are entitled to refer to yourself as a “social conservative.” But nobody who calls themselves a fiscal conservative could support Bush and the Republican Congress who are spending your tax dollars in an orgy of profligacy the likes of which has not been experienced in our lifetimes.  You can continue to deny yourself this truth, but be assured that true conservatives know the truth.  Bush and the Republican Congress are asking you to mortgage their futures and the futures of their children and grandchildren in exchange for soft “promises” on social issues.  You are justifying the fiscal rape of your children and grandchildren perpetrated by your “moral” leaders in exchange for a vague promise of gains on social issues.  Do yourself and your kids a favor; look them in the eye and explain to them why you have chosen to saddle them with these financial burdens, explain to them your reasoning.  Then look in the mirror and explain to yourself how you can continue to support the people who you know in your heart are screwing you and to your kids.  Is that morality?  Is that conservatism?

Read the whole Cato article here:
http://www.cato.org/pubs/tbb/tbb-0510-26.pdf

Read the Will column here:
http://www.suntimes.com/output/will/cst-edt-geo17.html

Rob -
You missed my point.

Clinton was not, I repeat not, suggesting that American foreign policy, as a whole, was a mistake - merely that mistakes have been made within it (namely, the probably quite valid criticism that the police and military should not have been disbanded).

Your position is equivalent to suggesting that if a US politician had criticised the (as it turned out, misguided) Arnhem offensive during WWII, he is labelling the whole war a mistake. Which is nonsense.

Perhaps this -

“Clinton said the United States had done some good things in Iraq: the removal of Saddam, the ratification of a new constitution and the holding of parliamentary elections.”?

My goal wasn’t to suggest that he is being hypocritical.  My point was that a) it’s terrible for a former President to go over seas and tell the world that our foreign policy is a “big mistake (it undermines the war effort and emboldens the enemy) and b) that he came to the same conclusions about the threat Saddam posed to the world that Bush did back in 1998.  The people who are saying that Bush is a liar but Clinton isn’t are the hypocrites.

Clinton got it, even if he didn’t have the cojones to do something about it.

When the people fear their government, there is tyranny; when the government fears the people, there is liberty.

-- Thomas Jefferson

Rob’s recently listened-to songs:

[...] It probably does matter to the troops who have to deal with terrorists infused with a new vigor after hearing a former U.S. President talk about the war being a “big mistake” (to a crowd of middle-eastern Arabs, no less). [...]

Phil said “Then look in the mirror and explain to yourself how you can continue to support the people who you know in your heart are screwing you and to your kids. Is that morality? Is that conservatism?”

I look in the mirror and feel good knowing that I am not some lying, cheating, regreswsive liberal.  In case you haven’t noticed, Phil, it’s an imperfect world out there but when I consider the alternatives e.g. Gore or Kerry as president, being subject to Islamic law, buildings being blown up in the states rather than elsewhere, president Bush looks pretty good.

When Jefferson said that ‘government is a necessary evil’ he wasn’t talking about any specific government but government in general.  The idea of a smaller less intrusive government works for me but we’re not going to get it with the current political power base.  The small government idea was pretty much put on the shelf when state sovereignty was destroyed during the civil war.

Your worry of the government deficit may cause you sleepless nights but I could care less.  All the government has to do to eliminate it almost overnight is to eliminate welfare programs, entitlement payouts, other social programs and congressional pork.  Not likely to happen.

Correct me if I am wrong, but weren’t Clinton’s exact words -

“Saddam is gone. It’s a good thing”?

What he thought was “a big mistake” was clearly not the removal of Saddam, but the way the post-war situation has been planned. At least that’s the interpretation I get from the article -

“Clinton said the United States had done some good things in Iraq: the removal of Saddam, the ratification of a new constitution and the holding of parliamentary elections.

“The mistake that they made is that when they kicked out Saddam, they decided to dismantle the whole authority structure of Iraq. ... We never sent enough troops and didn’t have enough troops to control or seal the borders,” Clinton said.”

It therefore seems a little disingenuous to suggest that he is being hypocritical.

Since we don’t have the full text of Clinton’s speech to put the excerpts from the article in context, I have to go with what was reported, which was this:

Former President Clinton told Arab students Wednesday the United States made a “big mistake” when it invaded Iraq, stoking the partisan debate back home over the war.

That, to me, seems pretty clear.  He’s classifying the invasion as a mistake.  If you can put the words in context so that its clear he wasn’t saying that I’ll gladly update with a correction.

When the people fear their government, there is tyranny; when the government fears the people, there is liberty.

-- Thomas Jefferson

Rob’s recently listened-to songs:

couldn’t it also be said that getting a bj from your intern while at work is a “big Mistake”?

One that has no real impact on America what so ever.

That implies a “But...”

It think it is clear from the article that the overall tone of Clinton’s speech was one of invading Iraq being a mistaken when taken as a whole.  Which is probably what he believes, given that his thinking was online with President Bush’s as to Iraq being an international threat yet he did not invade.

When the people fear their government, there is tyranny; when the government fears the people, there is liberty.

-- Thomas Jefferson

Rob’s recently listened-to songs:

couldn’t it also be said that getting a bj from your intern while at work is a “big Mistake”?

I get your point Mark, and you could be right.  That’s just not how I’m seeing it.  But we all have our biases which often influence our conclusions in situations like this.  I’m more than happy to admit that I could be wrong.

I’d really like to see the entire text of the speech.  I’m looking for it, but just can’t seem to find it.

When the people fear their government, there is tyranny; when the government fears the people, there is liberty.

-- Thomas Jefferson

Rob’s recently listened-to songs:

"That implies a “But…””

Certainly. And Clinton was kind enough to say what it was, as well as implying it.

“The mistake that they made is that when they kicked out Saddam, they decided to dismantle the whole authority structure of Iraq. ... We never sent enough troops and didn’t have enough troops to control or seal the borders,” Clinton said.

As the borders were unsealed, “the terrorists came in,” he said.”

That was the mistake.

Not the war as a whole.

Yeah, would be good to find it…

To be fair, I think the quote you use can be read two ways, and is therefore a little misleading.

“Clinton says US made big mistake when it invaded Iraq”

can be read either as

A) the invasion (as a whole) was a mistake

or

B) a big mistake was made during that invasion.

On the basis of the article as a whole, interpretation B) seems far more plausible.

But that’s just me.

One that has no real impact on America what so ever.

Andrew, you don’t honestly belive that do you?

"You’re ssaying hes big then.”

No quite the opposite.  His sexual escapades were really just a way for him to make up for the fact that Hillary has a bigger dick than him.  But that’s just what I’ve heard from former governor James McGreevey.

Andrew (referring to zipper gate):

The whole incident was blown way too far out of proportion.

"Andrew, you don’t honestly believe that do you?”

Well it has had an impact (not one I consider to be real, rather percieved) on America of course, but the fact is that the act alone shouldn’t have had any effect whatsoever.  The whole incident was blown way too far out of proportion.  Also, his bluder didn’t cause greater casualties to be inflicted during a time of war, nor did it compromise national security.  Don’t get me wrong, I support OIF, but I think greater mistakes have been made during its course that have caused a more serious impact than a BJ.

Andrew, it is a common saying that those that can’t be trusted in small things are also to be distrusted in big things.  If he cheated on his marriage why wouldn’t he also as the president be capable as some believe of cheating on his loyalty and duty to the country?

docdave:  Do you mean something like going into a country that is on the list of countries know to have terrorist sympathies and telling them that our foreign policy is wrong and we made a big mistake?  Sounds a lot like treason to me…

Of course, nobody will hear about the Al Queda using President Clinton’s remarks as cannon fodder for recruiting…

If he cheated on his marriage why wouldn’t he also as the president be capable as some believe of cheating on his loyalty and duty to the country?

So I guess Jefferson, FDR, JFK and a long list of other US Presidents weren’t capable of leading this country.  Bush did cocaine and had a DUI, but I don’t distrust him or doubt his abilities to be an honest and effective leader because of those mistakes.

Your argument technique, Andrew, is called ‘misdirection’, very disingenious and not worthy of response.

Your argument technique, Andrew, is called ‘misdirection’, very disingenious and not worthy of response.

You are the one that changed the direction of this conversation in the first place.

I simply stated that Clinton’s infamous BJ had no direct effect on the American people’s lives.  I followed that comment by saying that I believed that Clinton’s BJ was a much smaller mistake than some of the mishandlings of OIF.  Afterall, people’s lives are at stake when dealing with a military campaign, but no one is put at risk when a man recieves sexual acts.  No where in any of my posts had I directly questioned Clinton’s character, moralities, or capabilites of betraying America.  And nowhere did I mention Clinton’s recent speech.

You chimed in with:
Andrew, it is a common saying that those that can’t be trusted in small things are also to be distrusted in big things. If he cheated on his marriage why wouldn’t he also as the president be capable as some believe of cheating on his loyalty and duty to the country?

This is completely irrelevant to my initial points.  If you want me to answer this honestly I will: I think Clinton is immoral, but I don’t question his loyalty to his country or his capabilites as a leader because he cheated on his wife.

"You are the one that changed the direction of this conversation in the first place.”

I changed the subject, Andrew?  Not sure how you can say that since the subject was Clinton veracity which translates easily to his honesty and credibility.  Anyhow, since you have decided to get back to this blogs subject, I have only to say that contrary to your apparent high regard for the man, I believe from his actions as president, he is a slick untrustworthy snake that I would not welcome into my home.

Not sure how you can say that since the subject was Clinton veracity which translates easily to his honesty and credibility.

That is the subject of this topic, but my initial post was in response to Thatedeguy’s statement (not the topic of this thread), couldn’t it also be said that getting a bj from your intern while at work is a “big Mistake”? I merely pointed out that I thought the BJ was less of a mistake than some of the ones made in Iraq.

Anyhow, since you have decided to get back to this blogs subject, I have only to say that contrary to your apparent high regard for the man, I believe from his actions as president, he is a slick untrustworthy snake that I would not welcome into my home.

I don’t think you understand what I was trying to say.  I agree with you that Clinton is immoral and is capable (actually more than capable) of betraying America.  However, its not the fact that he cheats on his wife that leads me to believe he’s untrustworthy as a leader.  Its incidents like his dealings with China that lead me to believe he’s a poor, untrustworthy leader.  I think our whole arguement is based on a misunderstanding and miscommuntication between the two of us.

"Its incidents like his dealings with China that lead me to believe he’s a poor, untrustworthy leader.  I think our whole argument is based on a misunderstanding and miscommunication between the two of us.”

Agreed, Andrew, all is forgiven hopefully mutually, and now the bastard (Clinton) is going all over the world saying negative things about the Bush administration and the war.  Don’t know who is worse Clinton or Carter.  Both of these fine gentlemen had their chance and pretty well screwed the pooch on their watch now I wish that both of them would STUP.