Bush was no fiscal conservative

[melensdad]

I see what you did there. How much was a loaf of bread when Washington was in office?

How does this compare to the Bush years?

Well it depends on how you measure it. If you measure it in pennies or dollars you will find that there may be some level of parity that is not too far out of whack, however if you measure it in what the dollar is WORTH in gold you will likely there is a huge disparity. As the value of the dollar falls compared to any measurable commodity that remains modestly stable you find that value is what you want to compare, not absolute cost.

The reason for this is simple. A $100 suit from the early 1800's is probably comparable to a $2500 suit today. But a suit worth 2 ounces of gold in the early 1800's and is comparable to a suit that is worth 2 ounces of gold today.

So when you ask for comparisons you need to actually compare value or worth, not an arbitrary number of dollars that float in value as fiat currency that is not based on a commodity.

 

[mrjarrell]

My only issue with your statement is the foreign war part, you cant compare leaving 50,000 troops in Iraq to the massive amount of money bush pumped into that country and war.
Furthermore, Obama inherited that war and now has an obligation to finish it.
Just like we all do as a nation, since it is our fault we went there to begin with. By our I do mean the citizens of our country, most of us knew the WMD's were bogus, and even if they weren't I would at least like to believe that the majority of us would've liked to get Bin laden first and foremost.

Wasn't my fault we went to Iraq. I, and many other people spoke out against that particular bit of adventurism before it even got off the ground. Spoke out against it while we were there, too. Didn't enable it by voting for Bush either. I don't buy into collectivism, nor do I buy into collective guilt.

 

[antsi]

The Obamatard took all the debt racked up under 8 years of the Bush administration, and promptly doubled it.

Yes, true. But remember that Bush was also a supporter of TARP and the other kinds of 'stimulus' crud; exactly the same policies that the Obamatard is using to flush money down the drain. If for whatever reason W had a third term, I believe we would be pretty much exactly where we are right now.

Bush doubled the deficit he inherited. Obama doubled the one he inherited. So tell me again how exactly is Bush our paragon of fiscal responsibility?

 

[TRWXXA]

Yes, true. But remember that Bush was also a supporter of TARP and the other kinds of 'stimulus' crud; exactly the same policies that the Obamatard is using to flush money down the drain. If for whatever reason W had a third term, I believe we would be pretty much exactly where we are right now.

Except for that TRILLION DOLLAR health care thing that we're now on the hook for. They don't call it "Bushcare", do they? Only Obama gets to be the eponym for that stupid and expensive piece of... legislation.

 

[antsi]

Except for that TRILLION DOLLAR health care thing that we're now on the hook for. They don't call it "Bushcare", do they? Only Obama gets to be the eponym for that stupid and expensive piece of... legislation.

Sorry, but that doesn't play into your argument very well because Obamacare is projected as a $1 trillion unfunded liability, whereas Bush's Medicaid prescription drug plan is a $5.5 trillion unfunded liability.

The title of this thread is not "Obama is fiscally responsible." The title is "Bush was no fiscal conservative," which is patently true.

Again, no fan of Obama here - he's the worst fiscal president in US history. I guess you Bush fans have a lot to thank him for, though, because courtesy of Obama, Bush is only the second worst fiscal president in US history instead of being the absolute worst.

 

[rambone]

We MUST lose the mentality that criticizing Bush means you like Obama, and criticizing Obama means you like Bush.

 

[antsi]

We MUST lose the mentality that criticizing Bush means you like Obama, and criticizing Obama means you like Bush.

Amen.

But what if you want to criticize them both?

Better yet, tar and feather?

 

[rambone]

Amen.

But what if you want to criticize them both?

Better yet, tar and feather?

That's the whole point of my thread!

 

[groovatron]

We MUST lose the mentality that criticizing Bush means you like Obama, and criticizing Obama means you like Bush.

Agreed!

They both suck......in a big way! I will talk about how I despise the pair of them all day long. It's been awhile, so I'm gonna say it..........

RON PAUL

 

[IndyBeerman]

Folks while this is amusing, I think we're missing the bigger point of it all.

People can biotch about Bush all they want, the first six years of his presidency spending was not that bad.

The last two years of Bush's term and the first 19 months of Obama has been a Democratic controlled Congress.

Bush couldn't stop them, and Obama only enabled them and encouraged them to spend it like there was no tomorrow.

Point at congress first with Bush, then point at Obama and Congress secondly.

 

[SnowCountry]

Being a very media intense nation we enjoy "watching" items in news. I can say that if you wish to watch the last 12 years of Bush's mistakes and Obama's failures unfold (and where we are headed economically) there is a very well edited and profound viseo on Youtube called: "Overdose-the next financial crises."

I am a student of economics and history and can tell you that this is total truth. No one has even come close to this video in explaining the truth to the American people. You can make your own decisions as to whether our present economic malaise was and is plain ignorance or a perpetrated downturn. This video is right on the mark. It explains it in very real terms.

 

[kingnereli]

We MUST lose the mentality that criticizing Bush means you like Obama, and criticizing Obama means you like Bush.

We also must lose the mentality that any third party candidate is going to be president any time before all of us here are dust. It's a nice try to just make Bush and Obama seem the same to bolster fringe candidates in the future. A large part of Bush's spending was on a just war, defending liberty. I'm not interested in putting a price tag on that. Secondly, social conservatism is far more important than fiscal conservatism. It's big perk if a politician/candidate is fiscally conservative but spending more money than I would like them too is quite forgivable if they align with me on social issue.

Regarding Ron Paul, he will never ever be president. Voting for him or anyone like him is a waste of a vote and makes you just as responsible for Obama's brand of liberals winning elections as people who actually voted for the liberals.

 

[grizman]

Folks while this is amusing, I think we're missing the bigger point of it all.

People can biotch about Bush all they want, the first six years of his presidency spending was not that bad.

The last two years of Bush's term and the first 19 months of Obama has been a Democratic controlled Congress.

Bush couldn't stop them, and Obama only enabled them and encouraged them to spend it like there was no tomorrow.

Point at congress first with Bush, then point at Obama and Congress secondly.

+1

 

[rambone]

I'm not interested in putting a price tag on that. Secondly, social conservatism is far more important than fiscal conservatism. It's big perk if a politician/candidate is fiscally conservative but spending more money than I would like them too is quite forgivable if they align with me on social issue.

Will you forgive them when the country goes bankrupt and balkanizes? What social issues do you view as more important than preventing hyperinflation?

 

[right winger]

Bush was no fiscal conservative, although he attempted to call himself one. Now our current big-spenders in Washington continue to paint Bush's brand of statism in the same way, in order to demonize all laissez-faire capitalism. In reality they are following all the same fiscal policies. Obama is Bush's 3rd term.

Campaign For Liberty - 'W.' was no fiscal conservative

Obama is Caters second term

 

[mrjarrell]

Folks while this is amusing, I think we're missing the bigger point of it all.

People can biotch about Bush all they want, the first six years of his presidency spending was not that bad.

The last two years of Bush's term and the first 19 months of Obama has been a Democratic controlled Congress.

Bush couldn't stop them, and Obama only enabled them and encouraged them to spend it like there was no tomorrow.

Point at congress first with Bush, then point at Obama and Congress secondly.

You're mistaken in this. Bush, like any president had the ultimate power to rein in spending and chose not to. That makes him complicit in the entire affair. You're deliberately leaving out the fact that he deliberately chose not to exercise a veto. Why? Because he approved of the spending that went on. He approved of TARP and all the other budget busting spending and even imposed a health care boondoggle on us that will cost this country trillions. Your view doesn't wash against the truth of the matter.

 

[mrjarrell]

Obama is Caters second term

And Bush's 3rd.

 

[kingnereli]

Will you forgive them when the country goes bankrupt and balkanizes? What social issues do you view as more important than preventing hyperinflation?

A rather large number of them. Too many to list but I'll give you a few. Religious freedom, pro-life, anti-gay marriage, keeping drugs illegal and more. Basically, if the only two choices for this country were rich and immoral or poor and moral I would choose the latter.

 

[dwagner3701]

The Clintons started the health care BS. You can't Veto everything if you want the funding for the military passed. There is a lot more bargaining that goes on in this than meets the eye.

 

[rambone]

A rather large number of them. Too many to list but I'll give you a few. Religious freedom, pro-life, anti-gay marriage, keeping drugs illegal and more. Basically, if the only two choices for this country were rich and immoral or poor and moral I would choose the latter.

You must be quite pleased with the state of the country then.