I'm a bit troubled...(warning - more political BS)
 

I was a bit more than usually uncomfortable after the State of the Union, and I think I've finally figured out why.

Isn't it a basic foundation of the GOP to be fiscally conservative? I know that statement is a little thin, but bear with me here. In the SU address - he hardly mentioned the humungous deficit, yet he spoke about new spending and lower taxes. He even patted congress on the back for the free (or thereabouts) drugs for seniors (with a billion dollar price tag). He exhibited zero fiscal conservatism in his address - in fact he even said that there would be continued growth in spending.

This all sounds fiscally Democratic (not democratic) doesn't it?

Yet on the cultural/social side of the scale his approach is the opposite. He show himself to be an absolute hawk on matters of social evolution (for lack of a better word) like abortion choice and gay marriage.

So let's see. Spend money like a Democrat. Run roughshod over people's choice like a tyrant.

If I look around the world (or even within the Union) I think that I see a steam-rolling trend in almost exactly the opposite direction. That is - a tsunami of fiscal responsibility (conservatism) combined with a breaking wave of cultural liberality.

Is GWB is taking us in exactly the wrong direction?

...there, now I feel better.

I think if you replace the word 'Democrat' with the word 'Politician', then you have your answer...and by the way, I'm a registered republican, but think of them ALL as professional politicians :).

For the first time in my politically conservative life, I find myself questioning a 'Republican' president.

I see people in this country barely making a living, able to afford bare necessities by eating only once a day. Illegal immigrants faring better than citizens by abusing the welfare system. Sorry, I know it's not 'PC', but something is wrong when GWB says we should spend BILLIONS by going to Mars.

Now......

There is the opinion that says that the space programs proposed will never happen.

That the 'Immigration Reform Act' proposed will never happen.

That these ideas are a "Gray Davis" attempt to win office by appeasing potential votes, and that these nonsensical proposals are a win-win political ploy.

Hmmmm.

I would have expected a lot more from a president. I am disappointed.

I intend to vote for Ralph Nader again. He will spoil everyones plans equally.

i get my political news from the daily show. it is a bit off center but i get the side of politian i want to see. did any of you see john cain on the show the other night? he nailed it and was rolling his eyes at bush, granted he lost to bush four years ago. it gives you a side of them that they do not portray in the mainstream media. they are actually like people, not just talking heads.

and how about dean's melt down?

the daily show also did sound bites from bush's run four years ago and his two most recent state of the unions. it was classic, him saying things like "my administration will not be nation building" and then running him saying " iraq needs our assitance to form goverment".

i have completly given up on the whiole process. its a lose lose.

I share your concern with deficit spending. There are two kinds of conservatism (and liberalism) for that matter: Social/Moral conservativism and Fiscal conservativism. A person may be both, or one or the other, or neither.

I am voting for Bush in November. Why?
I guarantee no democratic candidate will ever give a rip about ending deficit spending. If there was a Candidate of any party who really cared about HomeLand and World Security, and who was worried about cutting deficit spending, I would vote for him (Zell Miller - Democratic Senator from Georgia is the only person who fits this description - Unfortunately he is retiring at the end of the year). But there is not. Bush is the best option - At least I feel the USA is a safer place thanks to him. A real dilemma is "how do you make the world a safer place", knowing that it will ocst losts of $$$ to do so? I'm hoping the spending of $$$ to keep the world safer will drop down in the next few years. I'm willing to live with deficits short-term, but long term, it will be a real problem if it is not resolved.

Brawlins,

It's ironic you should name Zell Miller as "Candidate of any party who really cared about HomeLand and World Security, and who was worried about cutting deficit spending".

Let's take a look at what Zell has to say...

Zell Miller is a Democratic Senator from the state of Georgia. This was published in the Wall Street Journal on Nov 3, 2003 and is must reading for anyone who intends to cast any vote in any primary or general election in 2004. From the Wall Street Journal

November 3, 2003

Commentary (U.S.)

George Bush vs. the Naive Nine

By ZELL MILLER

If I live and breathe, and if -- as Hank Williams used to say -- the creek don't rise, in 2004 this Democrat will do something I didn't do in 2000, I will vote for George W. Bush for president.

I have come to believe that George Bush is the right man in the right place at the right time. And that's a pretty big mouthful coming from a lifelong Democrat who first voted for Adlai Stevenson in 1952 and has voted for every Democratic presidential candidate the 12 cycles since then. My political history to the contrary, this was the easiest decision I think I've ever made in deciding who to support. For I believe the next five years will determine the kind of world my four grandchildren and four great-grandchildren will live in. I simply cannot entrust that crucial decision to any one of the current group of Democratic presidential candidates.

Why George Bush? First, the personal; then, the political.

I first got to know George Bush when we served as governors together, and I just plain like the man, a man who feeds his dogs first thing every morning, has Larry Gatlin sing in the White House, and knows what is meant by the term "hitting behind the runner."

I am moved by the reverence and tenderness he shows the first lady and the unabashed love he has for his parents and his daughters.

I admire this man of faith who has lived that line in that old hymn, "Amazing Grace," "Was blind, but now I see." I like the fact that he's the same on Saturday night as he is on Sunday morning. And I like a man who shows respect for others by starting meetings on time.

That's the personal. Now, the political.

This is a president who understands the price of freedom. He understands that leaders throughout history often have had to choose between good and evil, tyranny and freedom. And the choice they make can reverberate for generations to come. This is a president who has some Churchill in him and who does not flinch when the going gets tough. This is a president who can make a decision and does not suffer from "paralysis analysis." This is a president who can look America in the eye and say on Iraq, "We're not leaving." And you know he means it.

This is also a president who understands that tax cuts are not just something that all taxpayers deserve, but also the best way to curb government spending. It is the best kind of tax reform. If the money never reaches the table, Congress can't gobble it up.

I have just described George W. Bush.

Believe me, I looked hard at the other choices. And what I saw was that the Democratic candidates who want to be president in the worst way are running for office in the worst way. Look closely, there's not much difference among them. I can't say there's "not a dime's worth of difference" because there's actually billions of dollars' worth of difference among them. Some want to raise our taxes a trillion, while the others want to raise our taxes by several hundred billion. But, make no mistake, they all want to raise our taxes. They also, to varying degrees, want us to quit and get out of Iraq. They don't want us to stay the course in this fight between tyranny and freedom. This is our best chance to change the course of history in the Middle East. So I cannot vote for a candidate who wants us to cut and run with our shirttails at half-mast.

I find it hard to believe, but these naive nine have managed to combine the worst feature of the McGovern campaign -- the president is a liar and we must have peace at any cost -- with the worst feature of the Mondale campaign -- watch your wallet, we're going to raise your taxes. George McGovern carried one state in 1972. Walter Mondale carried one state in 1984. Not exactly role models when it comes to how to get elected or, for that matter, how to run a country.

So, as I have said, my choice for president was an easy decision. And my own party's candidates made it even easier.

Mr. Miller is a Democratic senator from Georgia and the author of "A National Party No More: The Conscience of a Conservative Democrat," published last month by Stroud &Hall.

Randy

I think the US would be safer with a new President. Bush has just abouted alienated the US from the whole world save a few "coalition partners." The US needs someone that can work with world leaders, not piss them off.

I had kinda hoped that this could be a thread with some discussion about fiscal/social issues, not a symposium for preaching about the wonderful human being that any particular candidate is or isn't.

We gotta stop elections from being completely about crap like that - no wonder so many people have given up on the process.

This isn't American Idol folks.

I guess I'm one fiscal card-carrying conservative because I'm really having trouble getting behind Bush - no matter how swell of a guy he is.

It's really hard to get behind anybody for me. I mean, I'll agree wholeheartedly with one part of a candidate, but be totally turned off by another. The 2 party system sucks. I want many candidates, candidates who don't feel obligated to stay within the confines of a particular party's beliefs. What ever happened to the libertarians?

Several Trusims:
1.When you boyz go out and look to buy another Porsche, do you ask your neighbor if it's all right with him?

2.In life there are many occasions where we have to make important decisions based upon faulty or incomplete information. But at THAT point in time we make the best decision we can based upon the available information.

Answer to Deficit Spending:

With regards to deficit spending..what is the money going to be used for?..Security...National Defense..Then it's better to go into the red on spending than to have no spending because U HAVE NO ECONOMY. Thats how serious the war on Terrorism is.

Someone on this Board complained awhile back that all Bushy could say after 911 was that Americans should keep on spending...Duh 66% of the US economy is consumer driven and if Americans don't spend there is no economy...simple huh.

Also one of the saving graces was GM's lowering the interest rate on cars to 0%. What that did was not only keep car sales up...but because cars were being sold PEOPLE WERE EMPLOYED and PAYCHECKS WERE GIVEN OUT. No cars sales = unemployed Auto workers.

With Regards to John McCain:

McCain did a flip flop and sold out to the Gun Control faction...even though the CDC came to the conclusion that you can't prove Gun Control works.

I see liberal and conservative from a fiscal stand point. Liberals usually want to develop great social programs and have someone else pay for them. Let me give you an example here in California (or is it Kalefornia, I forget...) Anyway, here the state pays about $7,000 per student for K-12 education. Liberals here want to give amnesty to illegal aliens from other countries. Conservatives do not. This is also a rich and poor issue, not just illegal aliens. If you work from the premise that everyone should pay their "fair share" i.e., you pay for the services that you receive, then if you have three kids in public school, your "fair share" of the education tab for your 3 kids is about $21,000/year. At a 10% income tax rate (its 9% now, but soon to come) you should have an adjusted gross income of about $210,000/year just to pay your "fair share" of your 3 kids education. Granted there is property tax and sales tax and such, but you still need to pay $21K in education taxes, and we haven't even discussed police, fire, water supply, highways, etc. People who keep advancing all these social programs expect the "Rich" to pay for them, saying that the "Rich" pay a disproportionately small share of their income relative to the "Poor". If I make $1 million/year (I don't) then liberals, like State Senator Jon Burton (a San Francisco former hippie liberal) says "You make a lot a money, you can afford a few more thousand in taxes. Whether I can afford it or not isn't the question. What is the question is how many more times more taxes should I have to pay to advance some one else's liberal agenda. The fact is that in California the bottom half of wage earners pay no state income taxes, zero, zip, nada. The top 5% of wage earners pay close to 70% of all the income taxes. How's that for inequity. Finally, it really galls me when they have programs that are being demanded by the advocates for the poor to spend monies that they didn't even contribute. California is an expensive place to live, and if you don't have the education, skill set, or other abilities to make a decent living, I shouldn't have to be your income gap filler, you need to move somewhere else where you can afford to live.

A DB4...I like that.

Anyway I moved to Nevada for a variety of reasons...one of which were NO STATE INCOME TAX, Lower cost of living, the ability to allow myself to recoup a 3 year Bear market and I was stagant in the house I was in.

Maybe I can move back to CA as an illegal...go on welfare and have you pay my way. Then when you get tight you'll have to sell the DB4, and I'll be able to pick it up for a song.

huh?

also: thats only 2 truisms


also also: 10 bonus points for the quote under your name

Tabs:

Sure, why not... It seems everyone else feels that I should support the lifestyle that they believe they're entitled to, regardless of the choices that they made in life regarding education, developing marketable skills, etc. I'm not entitled to own the DB4 because as Dick Gephardt put it, "I'm one of the lucky sperms in life." Ignore the fact that I bought the DB4 31 years ago as a piece of junk and worked very hard to restore it and sometimes froze my butt off working outside on it in the winter in Boston when I couldn't afford a garage.

Question: The current administration jums on the "loyal opposition" for wanting bigger government, more invasive into private lives. So, I wonder.....Isn't this what has happened in the past three years? Isn't government on the federal level now bigger than in the past? And, is the citizenry getting the same level of services? I ask because, although the amount of federal spending has skyrocketed, the aid to state and local government has shrunk to the point that many local governments are having to raise taxes to keep plowing streets and fixing bridges. In my humble opinion, this negates any federal "tax relief", does it not?

I believe in having strong defense, national security and the rest. However, I find it difficult to swallow that the increase in federal spending all goes to those things that were instituted as a response to September 11, 2001. Am I the only one that thinks this way?

I do not care if the individual in the White House is a Democrat or a Republican. I would like to see an individual who has integrity, basic moral standards(not looking for perfection here), a modicom of common sense, and who would not lie to the public. I know I am a dreamer, but what really scares me is the decline over the decades of the qualities I mentioned above. At the federal level, we seem to be closing in on the philosophy the brought Rome down, i.e., "Bread and Circuses".

Just my rant....

Today that's called "Superbowl".

"Today the Superbowl...Tomorrow the World!!"

Yeah, what he said!

I think our leadership is goofy, and not just Bush, Clinton, any man or any woman in particular.

I do feel massive spending is wrong, especially by a "conservative" Republican, but unfortunately a Democrat would probably do worse. Pick your poison.

Yesterday, while reviewing my mutual fund portfolio, I noticed I had zero capital gains and dividends from last year. That means a lot less taxes for the government to waste. Ouch for them.