I'm a conservative who knows that Bush is not conservative.
That being the case, why is it a favorite Liberal arguement to use Bush's spending as an excuse for Hillary's proposed expenditures and endless pandering?
Two wrongs don't make a right, do they?
2007-10-09 08:53:38 · 18 answers · asked by Anonymous in Politics & Government ➔ Politics
Bush is not fiscally conservative. As far as a favorite argument of Libs, it's stupid. Neither Hillary or Bush is fiscally responsible, and electing Hillary will definitely be two wrongs not making a right. Oh, and I'm a Lib and I do live in the real world. Most of us do, it's just the extreme one's on here that make the rest of us look uneducated.
2007-10-09 09:11:05 · answer #1 · answered by Lisa M 5 · 3⤊ 0⤋
The primary problem with the "two wrongs" argument is that you assume the "wrong" is spending money. So, you argue, if it is wrong for Bush to spend money, it is wrong for Clinton to spend money. This is not the real problem.
I would have far less of a problem with Bush's spending (my opinion of the necessity of the war notwithstanding) if he would bother to FUND the spending. To my knowledge, he is the first President to initiate war operations AND maintain tax cuts simultaneously--the height of irresponsibility.
I am not a big fan of Hilary Clinton. I think she offers some good ideas, but she avoids saying what needs to be said for political gain (all politicians do this, of course--she just seems a bit louder). I wish someone would just say "Yes, we are going to initate a single-payer national health program, and we're going to fund it by taxing_____ or cutting ______."
The "liberal argument" as you put it is not a justification of the proposed expedatures as much as a refutation of those (mostly on the right) who insist we can't pay for them. Of course we can, if we choose to--just look at what we're doing now. I do think that it is an interesting statement of a society's priorities what we choose to spend our money on.
Frankly, however, with as much debt as Bush has put us in, I don't see how the government is going to start ANY new programs. We're going to have a tax increase no matter who gets elected just to cover that debt, and I doubt the economy could withstand the rapid rise in taxes that would come with a second increase so soon. Maybe in a few years.
2007-10-09 09:18:55 · answer #2 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 0⤋
It doesn't have anything to do with being Democrat or Republican, Liberal or Conservative. The main reason that our Government is so far in debt is because of "special interest" groups that spend millions "lobbying" for legislation that helps or promotes their cause and lines thier pockets. This includes those who needed this war to line their pockets. Every political candidate elected in the last 20 years has entered office with a big I.O.U attached, bought and paid for by special interest.
2007-10-09 09:04:46 · answer #3 · answered by Becca 4 · 4⤊ 0⤋
yes, two wrongs don't make a right.
and yes, your right about bush Not being fiscally conservative.
But, the "favorite Liberal argument" is..
"In regards to the war on terror the bush administration has Failed our country. We are the worlds only super power and in six years with over 500 billion spent bush still couldn't get the job done"
remember when the old saying was "it's the economy stupid"
now the new saying is "it's the war dummy"
---------------------------
I cant believe sharia called you "ma'am" he must be 5 years old
and
John Galt thinking he is a "great mind" on your level ? oh my God that's freaking funny !!
(nice way to kiss your own a*s Galt)
2007-10-09 09:29:55 · answer #4 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 1⤋
Funny how you cons are ready to rip apart Clinton for proposing to spend a penny while Bush spent thousands in comparison. Hypocrisy? Yes.
Difference that she IS fiscally conservative. Notice how SCHIP or her proposal have plans to pay it NOW not in 20 years. You might not like raising taxes , but it is not your argument, is it ?
Bush spends like a drunken sailor. And you cons approve it 100%, I did not heare ANYONE complaining about it.
2007-10-09 09:02:11 · answer #5 · answered by Anonymous · 2⤊ 2⤋
Currently, all of the fiscal conservatives appear to be in the Democratic party. And the Republicans make fun of them, go figure.
What do you think that the "tax and spend" label means. It means being fiscally conservative. Not spending beyond your means. And the Republicans keep wanting to spending more and more money on getting US soldiers killed without paying for it. Not very fiscally conservative.
Funny how the Republicans keep using labels that really don't reflect reality.
2007-10-09 08:57:51 · answer #6 · answered by buffytou 6 · 7⤊ 3⤋
Great minds think alike. I have been harping on this point about a week or so now. The answer to your question is NO. Republican spend like drunken sailors just like dems. The conservative has nowhere to go now-a-days, sad, huh? How are the pups?
2007-10-09 09:03:13 · answer #7 · answered by Anonymous · 2⤊ 3⤋
Bush is certainly a conservative, he's just not much of a fiscal conservative, but he's certainly a rightwing christian / social conservative.
2007-10-09 08:57:04 · answer #8 · answered by Anonymous · 5⤊ 1⤋
Bush is nothing. a void in the stream of life . a hanging chad in the universe..he is soulless and mindless
2007-10-09 10:14:19 · answer #9 · answered by Anonymous · 2⤊ 0⤋
I am a conservative. I agree that Mr. Bush is not conservative. Mrs. Clinton is a socialist. She is pandering to the Democrats ignorant base...throw out promises of money or benefits to buy votes.
It won't work on me. I will not vote for Mrs. Clinton under any circumstances.
2007-10-09 09:00:25 · answer #10 · answered by regerugged 7 · 3⤊ 5⤋