Go Back  DVD Talk Forum > General Discussions > Other Talk > Religion, Politics and World Events
Reload this Page >

Fiscal Conservatives Should Hang Their Heads In Shame For Supporting Bush

Religion, Politics and World Events They make great dinner conversation, don't you think? plus Political Film

Fiscal Conservatives Should Hang Their Heads In Shame For Supporting Bush

Old 11-11-04, 06:59 PM
  #1  
DVD Talk Special Edition
Thread Starter
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: Hollywood
Posts: 1,021
Fiscal Conservatives Should Hang Their Heads In Shame For Supporting Bush

Look at what happened to George Bush over the last four years, with a Republican Congress:

Non-defense spending grew by an average of 8 percent a year. Under Bill Clinton, it grew by an average of only 4.3 percent a year. Meanwhile, special-interest tax loopholes exploded over the past four years. The corporate tax bill the president signed last month was the biggest piece of special-interest pork in history. Yet tax loopholes increased only moderately under Clinton.

Over the last four years, George Bush has signed every spending bill that came his way -- every morsel of pork for the folks back home in every Republican congressional district, every bit of corporate welfare for the big businesses that contributed to every Republican Senator and every Republican Representative. Total federal tax revenue is $100 billion lower this year than when Bush took office in 2001 but spending is $400 billion higher!

Poor George Bush. Now he has an even larger Republican majority. And the budget deficit is already way over $400 billion this year. He doesnít stand a chance of reducing it. Every one of those newly-elected Republicans in the House and most in the Senate are carrying around huge IOUs from the election. And all those IOUs require more special tax breaks, more subsidies, more spending. Itís enough to make a president downright depressed.

Edited from:RobertReich.org
Wannabe is offline  
Old 11-11-04, 07:05 PM
  #2  
DVD Talk God
 
kvrdave's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 1999
Location: Pacific NW
Posts: 86,201
I agree, but what choice did they have? Vote Kerry? Be realistic.
kvrdave is offline  
Old 11-11-04, 07:07 PM
  #3  
DVD Talk God
 
kvrdave's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 1999
Location: Pacific NW
Posts: 86,201
Does "non-defence" spending include Homeland Security, or does anyone know that?

I think it would also be good to look at individual spending. I agree that Bush spent too much, but there is some spending I don't mind, but plenty I do.
kvrdave is offline  
Old 11-11-04, 07:17 PM
  #4  
DVD Talk God
 
Join Date: Jun 1999
Posts: 68,522
I agree, but the source of the article might be just a tad suspect.
classicman2 is offline  
Old 11-11-04, 07:34 PM
  #5  
bhk
DVD Talk Legend
 
Join Date: May 1999
Location: Right of Atilla The Hun
Posts: 19,749
OK, I'm ashamed.

Done,
lasted about 1 second.
bhk is offline  
Old 11-11-04, 07:43 PM
  #6  
DVD Talk Hero
 
Th0r S1mpson's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 1999
Location: Seattle, WA
Posts: 36,443
[hangs head in shame]

[buys a beer to relieve shame and boost the economy]

Woo hoo! I boosted the economy!
Th0r S1mpson is offline  
Old 11-11-04, 07:48 PM
  #7  
Suspended
 
Join Date: Jan 2002
Posts: 52,503
Dear Robert Reich,

You're a dumbass.

I guess I should say something qualitative and maybe even more quantatative, so why don't you and your party start working 2nd jobs, donate all your money to the national debt, and I bet that deficit will be next to nothing come 2008. Go get'em Bob. I have faith in you.

Sincerely,

DVD Polizei
DVD Polizei is offline  
Old 11-11-04, 08:07 PM
  #8  
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Feb 1999
Posts: 371
Originally posted by DVD Polizei
Dear Robert Reich,

You're a dumbass.

I guess I should say something qualitative and maybe even more quantatative, so why don't you and your party start working 2nd jobs, donate all your money to the national debt, and I bet that deficit will be next to nothing come 2008. Go get'em Bob. I have faith in you.

Sincerely,

DVD Polizei
Wow, he is a "dumbass"...

"Robert B. Reich is University Professor and Maurice B. Hexter Professor of Social and Economic Policy at Brandeis University and at Brandeisís Heller School of Social Policy and Management. He has served in three national administrations, most recently as secretary of labor under President Bill Clinton. He has written ten books, including The Work of Nations , which has been translated into 22 languages; the best-sellers The Future of Success and Locked in the Cabinet ; and his most recent book, Reason . His articles have appeared in The New Yorker ,Atlantic Monthly ,New York Times ,Washington Post , and Wall Street Journal . Mr. Reich is co-founder and national editor of The American Prospect magazine. His commentaries can be heard weekly on public radioís "Marketplace."

In 2003, Reich was awarded the prestigious Vaclav Havel Vision Foundation Prize, by the former Czech president, for his pioneering work in economic and social thought. In 2002, Reich ran for the Democratic nomination for Governor of Massachusetts.

As the nationís 22nd Secretary of Labor, Reich presided over the implementation of the Family and Medical Leave Act; led a national fight against sweatshops in the U.S. and illegal child labor around the world; headed the administrationís successful effort to raise the minimum wage; secured workerís pensions, and launched job-training programs, one-stop career centers, and school-to-work initiatives. Under his leadership, the Department of Labor earned more than 30 awards for innovation and government reinvention. A 1996 poll of cabinet experts conducted by the Hearst newspapers rated him the most effective cabinet secretary during the Clinton administration.

Before taking office, Reich was a member of the faculty of Harvardís John F. Kennedy School of Government. He received his B.A. from Dartmouth College, his M.A. from Oxford University where he was a Rhodes Scholar, and his J.D. from Yale Law School. Since 1981, he has lived in Cambridge, Massachusetts, with his wife, Clare Dalton. They have two children, Adam and Sam.
Luka is offline  
Old 11-11-04, 08:08 PM
  #9  
DVD Talk God
 
Join Date: Feb 2000
Location: Directionally Challenged (for DirecTV)
Posts: 122,915
Originally posted by Luka
Wow, he is a "dumbass"...

"Robert B. Reich is University Professor and Maurice B. Hexter Professor of Social and Economic Policy at Brandeis University and at Brandeisís Heller School of Social Policy and Management. He has served in three national administrations, most recently as secretary of labor under President Bill Clinton. He has written ten books, including The Work of Nations , which has been translated into 22 languages; the best-sellers The Future of Success and Locked in the Cabinet ; and his most recent book, Reason . His articles have appeared in The New Yorker ,Atlantic Monthly ,New York Times ,Washington Post , and Wall Street Journal . Mr. Reich is co-founder and national editor of The American Prospect magazine. His commentaries can be heard weekly on public radioís "Marketplace."

In 2003, Reich was awarded the prestigious Vaclav Havel Vision Foundation Prize, by the former Czech president, for his pioneering work in economic and social thought. In 2002, Reich ran for the Democratic nomination for Governor of Massachusetts.

As the nationís 22nd Secretary of Labor, Reich presided over the implementation of the Family and Medical Leave Act; led a national fight against sweatshops in the U.S. and illegal child labor around the world; headed the administrationís successful effort to raise the minimum wage; secured workerís pensions, and launched job-training programs, one-stop career centers, and school-to-work initiatives. Under his leadership, the Department of Labor earned more than 30 awards for innovation and government reinvention. A 1996 poll of cabinet experts conducted by the Hearst newspapers rated him the most effective cabinet secretary during the Clinton administration.

Before taking office, Reich was a member of the faculty of Harvardís John F. Kennedy School of Government. He received his B.A. from Dartmouth College, his M.A. from Oxford University where he was a Rhodes Scholar, and his J.D. from Yale Law School. Since 1981, he has lived in Cambridge, Massachusetts, with his wife, Clare Dalton. They have two children, Adam and Sam.

I wouldn't say he is a dumbass.

My response to his piece would be more like "Well, duh!!!"
Red Dog is offline  
Old 11-11-04, 08:13 PM
  #10  
Moderator
 
Join Date: May 2000
Location: In mourning
Posts: 26,299


Despite his extreme partisanship, I like Mr. Reich.


Of course my head isn't hanging in shame either.
Pharoh is offline  
Old 11-11-04, 08:34 PM
  #11  
Suspended
 
Join Date: Jan 2002
Posts: 52,503
Luka,

At least know something about the man before you defend him adamantly. Ok?

The American Prospect.

Read it. I do.

He widely foresaw Democrats winning the 2004 election because of the right-wing taking over America.

"Public opinion sides with the Democrats," he has stated several times. Or what about this....

"For more than 300 years, the liberal tradition has sought to free people from the tyranny of religious doctrines that would otherwise be imposed on them. Todayís evangelical right detests that tradition and seeks nothing short of a state-sponsored religion."

Or what about this one:

"Terrorism is a tactic, not a belief. The true battle will be between modern civilization and anti-modernist; between those who believe in the primacy of the individual and those who believe that human beings owe their allegiance and identity to a higher authority ... between those who believe in science, reason and logic, and those who believe that truth is revealed through Scripture and religious dogma. Terrorism will disrupt and destroy lives. But terrorism itself is not the greatest danger we face."

He's mixing truth with shear fallacy here. He has widely accused any kind of religion, a bad and dangerous thing which should be avoided at all costs, but yet he doesn't comment on the zealot attitudes of the left, such as Michael Moore. I mean really, who's more "religious" in 2004? Christians or The Left? I say The Left.

The man can have all the degrees in the world, but does that matter? Should I give you Bush's resume? Maybe Ashcroft's? Maybe Rumsfield's resume, too? All of these people have great experience, but their common sense is lacking severely--as with most politicians.

Now, I will say Robert does have some interesting theories which may actually be correct, but they are few and far between his motormouth theories he's put out lately.

Last edited by DVD Polizei; 11-11-04 at 08:40 PM.
DVD Polizei is offline  
Old 11-11-04, 08:35 PM
  #12  
DVD Talk God
 
Join Date: Jun 1999
Posts: 68,522
Robert Reich wrote a book, I'll Be Short:........ that everyone, especially our libertarian friends, should read.
classicman2 is offline  
Old 11-11-04, 10:08 PM
  #13  
DVD Talk Hero
 
Join Date: Nov 1999
Posts: 36,981
does he realize what prompted that bill bush signed last month?
Venusian is offline  
Old 11-11-04, 10:15 PM
  #14  
DVD Talk Hero
 
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: in da cloud
Posts: 26,196
Re: Fiscal Conservatives Should Hang Their Heads In Shame For Supporting Bush

Originally posted by Wannabe
Look at what happened to George Bush over the last four years, with a Republican Congress:

Non-defense spending grew by an average of 8 percent a year. Under Bill Clinton, it grew by an average of only 4.3 percent a year. Meanwhile, special-interest tax loopholes exploded over the past four years. The corporate tax bill the president signed last month was the biggest piece of special-interest pork in history. Yet tax loopholes increased only moderately under Clinton.

Over the last four years, George Bush has signed every spending bill that came his way -- every morsel of pork for the folks back home in every Republican congressional district, every bit of corporate welfare for the big businesses that contributed to every Republican Senator and every Republican Representative. Total federal tax revenue is $100 billion lower this year than when Bush took office in 2001 but spending is $400 billion higher!

Poor George Bush. Now he has an even larger Republican majority. And the budget deficit is already way over $400 billion this year. He doesnít stand a chance of reducing it. Every one of those newly-elected Republicans in the House and most in the Senate are carrying around huge IOUs from the election. And all those IOUs require more special tax breaks, more subsidies, more spending. Itís enough to make a president downright depressed.

Edited from:RobertReich.org
senator byrd has always been the king of pork

he's a democrat senator from west virginia if you don't know
al_bundy is offline  
Old 11-11-04, 10:18 PM
  #15  
DVD Talk Hero
 
Join Date: Dec 1999
Location: Shackled
Posts: 35,372
Which of the candidates with a realistic shot of winning should fiscal conservatives have supported?
Bushdog is offline  
Old 11-11-04, 10:33 PM
  #16  
DVD Talk Legend
 
Join Date: Apr 2002
Posts: 20,726
Bushdog, the answer is Mr. Badnarik. Oh, you mean, a realistic shot? Hmm, yeah, that's a real doozy. I do hope Congress and the White House show some restraint in spending.
Ranger is offline  
Old 11-11-04, 10:36 PM
  #17  
DVD Talk Special Edition
Thread Starter
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: Hollywood
Posts: 1,021
Originally posted by Bushdog
Which of the candidates with a realistic shot of winning should fiscal conservatives have supported?
Kerry.

http://www.cato.org/research/article...ow-040420.html

The Conservative Case for Voting Democratic
by Doug Bandow

Doug Bandow is a senior fellow at the Cato Institute and a former visiting fellow at the Heritage Foundation. He served as a special assistant to President Ronald Reagan.

Republicans have long claimed to be fiscal tightwads and railed against deficit spending. But this year big-spending George W. Bush and the GOP Congress turned a budget surplus into a $477 billion deficit. There are few programs at which they have not thrown money: massive farm subsidies, an expensive new Medicare drug benefit, thousands of pork-barrel projects, dubious homeland-security grants, expansion of Bill Clinton's AmeriCorps, even new foreign-aid programs. Brian Riedl of the Heritage Foundation reports that in 2003 "government spending exceeded $20,000 per household for the first time since World War II."

Complaints about Republican profligacy have led the White House to promise to mend its ways. But Bush's latest budget combines accounting flim-flam with unenforceable promises. So how do we put Uncle Sam on a sounder fiscal basis?

Vote Democratic.

Democrats obviously are no pikers when it comes to spending. But the biggest impetus for higher spending is partisan uniformity, not partisan identity. Give either party complete control of government, and the Treasury vaults are quickly emptied. Neither Congress nor the President wants to tell the other no. Both are desperate to prove they can "govern"ówhich means creating new programs and spending more money. But share power between parties, and out of principle or malice they check each other. Even if a President Kerry proposed more spending than would a President Bush, a GOP Congress would appropriate less. That's one reason the Founders believed in the separation of powers.

Consider the record. William Niskanen, former acting chairman of the Council of Economic Advisors, has put together a fascinating analysis of government spending since 1953. Real federal outlays grew fastest, 4.8% annually, in the Kennedy-Johnson years, with Congress under Democratic control. The second-fastest rise, 4.4%, occurred with George W. Bush during Republican rule. The third-biggest spending explosion, 3.7%, was during the Carter administration, a time of Democratic control. In contrast, the greatest fiscal stringency, 0.4%, occurred during the Eisenhower years. The second-best period of fiscal restraint, 0.9%, was in the Clinton era. Next came the Nixon-Ford years, at 2.5%, and Ronald Reagan's presidency, at 3.3%. All were years of shared partisan control.

Bush officials argue that it is unfair to count military spending, but Dwight Eisenhower, Lyndon Johnson, and Ronald Reagan also faced international challenges that impeded their domestic plans. Moreover, if you do strip out military spending and consider only the domestic record, GOP chief executives emerge in an even worse light. In terms of real domestic discretionary outlays, which are most easily controlled, the biggest spender in the past 40 years is George W. Bush, with expenditure racing ahead 8.2% annually, according to Stephen Moore of the Club for Growth. No. 2 on the list is Gerald Ford, at 8%. No. 3 is Richard Nixon. At least the latter two, in contrast to Bush, faced hostile Congresses.

Given the generally woeful record of Republican Presidents, the best combination may be a Democratic chief executive and Republican legislature. It may also be the only combination that's feasible, since in 2004 at least, it will be difficult to overturn Republican congressional control: Redistricting has encouraged electoral stasis in the House, while far more Democrats face reelection in the Senate. Thus, the only way we can realistically keep Congress and the President in separate political hands is to vote for John Kerry in November.

Returning to divided government would yield another benefit as well: Greater opportunity for reform, whether of the budget process, tort liability, Medicare, Social Security, taxes, or almost anything else. Niskanen has observed that the prospects for change "will be dependent on more bipartisan support than now seems likely in a united Republican government." He points out that tax reform occurred in 1986, and agriculture, telecommunications, and welfare reform a decade later, all under divided government.

The deficit can be cut in half if Congress "is willing to make tough choices," says President Bush. But GOP legislators are likely to make tough choices only if he is replaced by a Democrat. History teaches us that divided government equals fiscal probity, so vote Democratic for President if you want responsible budgeting in Washington.
Wannabe is offline  
Old 11-11-04, 10:38 PM
  #18  
DVD Talk God
 
Join Date: Jun 1999
Posts: 68,522
Re: Re: Fiscal Conservatives Should Hang Their Heads In Shame For Supporting Bush

Originally posted by al_bundy
senator byrd has always been the king of pork

he's a democrat senator from west virginia if you don't know
The absolute king of pork happens to be a Republican - Trent Lott.
classicman2 is offline  
Old 11-11-04, 10:40 PM
  #19  
DVD Talk Hero
 
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: in da cloud
Posts: 26,196
it's hard to compare outlays with previous years since entitelements grow every year. what percentage of the federal budget were entitlements 50 years ago?
al_bundy is offline  
Old 11-11-04, 10:44 PM
  #20  
DVD Talk God
 
Join Date: Jun 1999
Posts: 68,522
Originally posted by al_bundy
it's hard to compare outlays with previous years since entitelements grow every year. what percentage of the federal budget were entitlements 50 years ago?
Much less. That's why the Repubs say that Reagan reduced discretionary spending. He did. Some of the discretionary spending became entitlement spending.
classicman2 is offline  
Old 11-11-04, 11:55 PM
  #21  
DVD Talk God
 
kvrdave's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 1999
Location: Pacific NW
Posts: 86,201
Originally posted by Wannabe
Kerry.

http://www.cato.org/research/article...ow-040420.html

The Conservative Case for Voting Democratic
by Doug Bandow

Doug Bandow is a senior fellow at the Cato Institute and a former visiting fellow at the Heritage Foundation. He served as a special assistant to President Ronald Reagan.

Republicans have long claimed to be fiscal tightwads and railed against deficit spending. But this year big-spending George W. Bush and the GOP Congress turned a budget surplus into a $477 billion deficit. There are few programs at which they have not thrown money: massive farm subsidies, an expensive new Medicare drug benefit, thousands of pork-barrel projects, dubious homeland-security grants, expansion of Bill Clinton's AmeriCorps, even new foreign-aid programs. Brian Riedl of the Heritage Foundation reports that in 2003 "government spending exceeded $20,000 per household for the first time since World War II."

Complaints about Republican profligacy have led the White House to promise to mend its ways. But Bush's latest budget combines accounting flim-flam with unenforceable promises. So how do we put Uncle Sam on a sounder fiscal basis?

Vote Democratic.

Democrats obviously are no pikers when it comes to spending. But the biggest impetus for higher spending is partisan uniformity, not partisan identity. Give either party complete control of government, and the Treasury vaults are quickly emptied. Neither Congress nor the President wants to tell the other no. Both are desperate to prove they can "govern"ówhich means creating new programs and spending more money. But share power between parties, and out of principle or malice they check each other. Even if a President Kerry proposed more spending than would a President Bush, a GOP Congress would appropriate less. That's one reason the Founders believed in the separation of powers.

Consider the record. William Niskanen, former acting chairman of the Council of Economic Advisors, has put together a fascinating analysis of government spending since 1953. Real federal outlays grew fastest, 4.8% annually, in the Kennedy-Johnson years, with Congress under Democratic control. The second-fastest rise, 4.4%, occurred with George W. Bush during Republican rule. The third-biggest spending explosion, 3.7%, was during the Carter administration, a time of Democratic control. In contrast, the greatest fiscal stringency, 0.4%, occurred during the Eisenhower years. The second-best period of fiscal restraint, 0.9%, was in the Clinton era. Next came the Nixon-Ford years, at 2.5%, and Ronald Reagan's presidency, at 3.3%. All were years of shared partisan control.

Bush officials argue that it is unfair to count military spending, but Dwight Eisenhower, Lyndon Johnson, and Ronald Reagan also faced international challenges that impeded their domestic plans. Moreover, if you do strip out military spending and consider only the domestic record, GOP chief executives emerge in an even worse light. In terms of real domestic discretionary outlays, which are most easily controlled, the biggest spender in the past 40 years is George W. Bush, with expenditure racing ahead 8.2% annually, according to Stephen Moore of the Club for Growth. No. 2 on the list is Gerald Ford, at 8%. No. 3 is Richard Nixon. At least the latter two, in contrast to Bush, faced hostile Congresses.

Given the generally woeful record of Republican Presidents, the best combination may be a Democratic chief executive and Republican legislature. It may also be the only combination that's feasible, since in 2004 at least, it will be difficult to overturn Republican congressional control: Redistricting has encouraged electoral stasis in the House, while far more Democrats face reelection in the Senate. Thus, the only way we can realistically keep Congress and the President in separate political hands is to vote for John Kerry in November.

Returning to divided government would yield another benefit as well: Greater opportunity for reform, whether of the budget process, tort liability, Medicare, Social Security, taxes, or almost anything else. Niskanen has observed that the prospects for change "will be dependent on more bipartisan support than now seems likely in a united Republican government." He points out that tax reform occurred in 1986, and agriculture, telecommunications, and welfare reform a decade later, all under divided government.

The deficit can be cut in half if Congress "is willing to make tough choices," says President Bush. But GOP legislators are likely to make tough choices only if he is replaced by a Democrat. History teaches us that divided government equals fiscal probity, so vote Democratic for President if you want responsible budgeting in Washington.


Yeah, Kerry was a fiscal conservative.

C-man, you're a social conservative, fiscal liberal, democrat....you buy that?
kvrdave is offline  
Old 11-12-04, 12:11 AM
  #22  
DVD Talk Hero
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: Madison, WI ("77 square miles surrounded by reality")
Posts: 30,005
Originally posted by DVD Polizei
Dear Robert Reich,

You're a dumbass.
...
I think Robert Reich is a dumbass. But even a dumbass gets it right once in awhile.
movielib is offline  
Old 11-12-04, 12:14 AM
  #23  
DVD Talk God
 
kvrdave's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 1999
Location: Pacific NW
Posts: 86,201
Those who thin Reich is a dumbass obviously don't remember how great he was in the private sector












kvrdave is offline  
Old 11-12-04, 12:16 AM
  #24  
DVD Talk Hero
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: Madison, WI ("77 square miles surrounded by reality")
Posts: 30,005
Originally posted by classicman2
Robert Reich wrote a book, I'll Be Short:........ that everyone, especially our libertarian friends, should read.
I seem to remember one time you wanted me to read a book by Reich and I said I would if you'd read For a New Liberty by Murray Rothbard, or it might have been Economics in One Lesson by Henry Hazlitt. You turned me down.
movielib is offline  
Old 11-12-04, 12:36 AM
  #25  
DVD Talk Hero
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: Madison, WI ("77 square miles surrounded by reality")
Posts: 30,005
Originally posted by kvrdave


Yeah, Kerry was a fiscal conservative.

C-man, you're a social conservative, fiscal liberal, democrat....you buy that?
I'm not sure I understand what you're laughing at. If I do understand you correctly you are saying the article says Kerry is a fiscal conservative. But nowhere in the article do I see that.

Bandow (a Christian libertarian whom I greatly admire, BTW) is saying a Republican Congress would resist spending proposals by Kerry much more than proposals from Bush, merely on partisan grounds.
movielib is offline  

Thread Tools
Search this Thread

Archive Advertising Cookie Policy Privacy Statement Terms of Service

Copyright © 2018 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.