Why aren't Republicans & Conservatives more upset that their Conservative party isn't fiscally conservative?

Question

Unless you think a fiscal Conservative means spending more than you bring in, why aren't conservatives more upset that this Republican party that calls itself conservative isn't practicing conservative fiscal policy at all.

When the conservatives gained control of Congress, didn't you expect spending to be under better control? Are you surprised that spending has increased at the same rate as when the liberals controlled Congress?

Let's hear from you Conservatives...why doesn't this bother you, or does it?

GRESHYMN: Generalities? Well gee, let's see, the Federal budget shows spending has increased every year and has been greater than federal receipts every year since Republicans took control of Congress. IS THAT TOO GENERAL FOR YOU?

Rude, gimme a break and actually response with some intelligence before you start name calling next time.

Raylene, great answer and good info. I believe you are right and I don't disagree that the left are still the worst spenders, but be that as it may, the Republicans are still operating on a deficit year after year which is not fiscally Conservative, that is a fact. You can spin it by saying the other side is worse, but it still irresponsible and George W still hasn't vetoed anything which seems a little strange.

Good point about military versus pork barrel spending too. But a true fiscal conservative budget would cut enough pork barrel and social needs to pay for the military and maintain a balanced budget, which is not what is happening.

Answer 1

It was a split within the party, between the old guard fiscal conservatives and the neo-cons.

The neo-cons realized the advantages of being in the majority in the federal government, as a means of advancing the rest of their social agenda on a national scale.

Many fiscal conservatives are upset. But if the choice is between deficit spending (and still lower taxes) and a Democratic Congress with contrary social agenda and higher taxes, they consider the neo-cons the lesser of the evils.

Answer 2

Haha...i love the first answer by Greshymn. I mean honestly, if you find someone asking a fiscal policy question rude, how thin skinned are you? And calling the asker stupid? The asker merely wanted to know the opinions of others. Nice work Greshymn, your ignorance is showing. Good grief!

As someone who is fiscally Conservative yet socially liberal, I can say with great disappointment that I don't believe the Republican party is conservative at all (fiscally). The guy above who mentioned the neocons took over the party makes a lot of sense...as far as I know, the neocons don't care about being fiscally conservative because their worldwide agenda is far more important to them...and thus, with the budget and so forth, its just more of the same. Luckily, there is no damage being done that can't be reversed down the road with some good money management in Congress, if it ever happens.

Answer 3

Because it is the cost of the war and natural disasters.

In response to your second part it’s about line item veto. Bush isn’t going to handicap things that are needed. Never before in any presidencies have we had, a major city destroyed (New Orleans), major buildings destroyed (9/11), major overhaul of all of America’s security both local and abroad, our troops operating in two theatres of war at the same time (Afghanistan & Iraq), rebuilding of the infrastructure of a major country, two major hurricanes before Katrina, almost no unemployment, inflation, a strong stock market, this year's deficit is projected to be 30 percent lower than initially thought, and tax cuts, all under one president.

I am completely amazed we are doing so well. I am old enough to know full well how Carter handled a minor situation in Iran and it was the worst economic time of my life.

So my answer is absolute NOT. I never expected spending to be under this good of control with the situations we faced. Up to this point in my life we are handling more crisis that requires expenditures than all other presidents combined. While history might show Bush as bad for wars, it certainly is going to give him the highest marks on the economy under these conditions. I can’t imagine what would have happened without the tax cuts.


Democrats still lead in pork barrel spending although they know we are in a crisis.

Pork Barrel is "abuse" and not something needed like troop armor.

There are bipartisan places that rate this spending. You don't know about this as you were fed only propaganda from the news media but here is where, if you do you own research, you will learn a lot about the junk you have been fed in the media that is not true.

You will see that the 13 from the bottom is Nancy Pelosi. That is out of a possible 437. Since she speaks out about spending it makes you believe that she is responsible but she is absolutely terrible. That is what “propaganda” is all about… it isn’t about truth but what you perceive as truth. This also isn’t one of those sites that is biased and has been around for many years. They will trash Republicans just as easily. This is the number one watchdog group to watch who in congress is wasting our money.

Scroll down to the bottom of the page once it is loaded.
The red ‘X’ indicate they are bad. It should be sorted from worst to best. Just keep clicking on “next” and you will be amazed that they are all Democrats that are the worst of the worst spenders. This is for the most current complete year, 2005. If it is not sorted right click the up button next to the ‘score’ column. The lower the score the worst the spender. For instance Pelosi scores a 6% and Rob Portman, some guy from Ohio, scores a 100% as best.

Council for Citizens Against Government Waste (CCAGW)
http://www.cagw.org/site/VoteCenter?page=congScorecard&congress=109&location=H&lcmd=score-asc&lcmd_cf=

Answer 4

Have you seen the president's approval numbers?

They are as much a result of conservatives' anger at this administration's spending habits and lack of prosecution of the war on terror as they are a result of liberals' personal disdain for the president and the war.

This country is still more conservative than it has been at any time in last 75 years.

Answer 5

Yes, it does bother us.

However, the Dems with their appease and die rather than fight for justice bothers us more.

No government is perfect. We take the good with the bad, and we don't whine about how everyone should love and be nice to each other, when the rest of the world sees what dolts we really are.

The President gives too much money away, no doubt about that. He's not strong enough on illegal border crossers. But at least he's not begging Islamo-fascists to come here and kill us like John Kerry and the left wing Dems are.

Answer 6

What many human beings did no longer notice in the present CPAC Straw pollconfirmed very low approval rankings for Steele. extra people who voted in that polldisapprove of him than approve of him. Steele is a giggling inventory, even in the Republican social gathering. in my view, I prefer human beings would stop sending money to the RNC, because it only ever makes use of it for unworthy reasons (jointly with interfering in primaries to assist nominate RINOs).

Answer 7

Maybe because we're so used to big spending liberals, we wouldn't recognize a conservative spender if we saw one?

Answer 8

Every wartime administration, Democrat or Republican, has spent big money. That's what it takes to win a war. It's called "guns or butter"

Answer 9

It might bother us, but at least we don't rely on support from terrorists like the liberals.

Answer 10

your speaking in generalities and that is unwise, stupid and rude.