George Bush is a don't tax but spend spend spend conservative

[insane man]

the question is simple. if you are a traditional conservative republican how in hell can you support dubya? he doesn't represent you.


Revised data released during the summer by the
Congressional Budget Office (CBO) provide analysts the
ability to make side-by-side comparisons of the spending
habits of each president during the last 40 years.1 All
presidents presided over net increases in spending overall,
though some were bigger spenders than others. As it turns
out, George W. Bush is one of the biggest spenders of
them all. In fact, he is an even bigger spender than
Lyndon B. Johnson in terms of discretionary spending.

...

Contrast that with Bush’s presidency so far. He has
presided over massive increases in almost every category.
This is a dramatic change of pace from most previous
presidents, when increases in defense spending were offset
by cuts in nondefense spending (or at least by spending
money on other programs at a rate slower than inflation).
George W. Bush’s tenure has so far been a return to the
Johnson and Carter philosophy of budgeting that gives
increases to all categories of spending.

http://www.cato.org/pubs/tbb/tbb-0510-26.pdf

[white lightning]

Apparantly a tax cut for the upper class in a wartime that he created makes economic sense to him also.

Regardless of how the war started, for the conservatives who support the war- how can you justify this tax cut at this time?

[thadeus]

There are very few traditional conservatives on this board. Those who have identified themselves as such, don't appear to be lining up to support Dubya's policies.

[rhadamanthus]

Don't confuse republicans and conservatives. That connection died long ago.

[insane man]

Tax Illogic


Saturday, December 10, 2005; Page A20

LET'S GET THIS straight. The House of Representatives, committed as it is to fiscal discipline, has made the tough choices and agreed to savings of $50 billion over the next five years from mandatory spending programs. A good portion of this amount comes from programs for the poor. Painful, perhaps, but necessary, you might argue. Except -- and this was no surprise to anyone who's been watching this masquerade of budgetary responsibility -- having muscled through these spending cuts, the House, in the space of two days this week, passed $95 billion in tax cuts. Overall, the House has approved $108 billion in tax cuts this year. Just because it keeps doing so in slices doesn't mean it doesn't add up to one expensive pie. Because lawmakers are simply slapping another one-year Band-Aid on the alternative minimum tax rather than addressing the underlying problem of its growing and unintended impact on middle-class taxpayers, the real five-year budget drain is apt to be bigger.

So let no one be fooled by the rhetoric of fiscal toughness: Rather than reducing the deficit over the next five years, the House proposes to widen it. Listen to Andrew Samwick, President Bush's former chief economist at the Council of Economic Advisers, after the president's speech Monday calling for the cuts on dividends and capital gains rates to be extended. "I find this whole discussion to be disheartening," Mr. Samwick wrote on his Vox Baby blog. "The first order issue with tax policy is that we are not raising enough revenue to match our expenditures. Making the lower tax rates permanent just makes sure that we will permanently not have enough revenue to match our expenditures, unless we decide to lower expenditures by even more."


No one who's watched this president and Congress operate over the past five years, and no one who understands the tidal wave of costs about to hit with the retirement of the baby boomers, believes that expenditures are about to decline. As Mr. Samwick put it, "I would be much happier if the President spoke about which expenditures he will cut . . . with the same specificity that he talks about which tax cuts he'd like to make permanent." Don't hold your breath.

Some of the tax measures -- extending some noncontroversial expiring tax provisions, alleviating the impact of the alternative minimum tax -- make sense. And, yes, tax cuts can help stimulate economic growth; if paid for, lower rates on capital gains and dividends could be beneficial. But if you asked us the best use of $108 billion -- even the best use of $108 billion in tax cuts -- this wouldn't be it. The economy has improved, but not as much for those at the bottom as for those at the top. Why, then, move to extend the cuts on capital gains and dividends, at a cost of $20.6 billion over five years? These provisions don't expire until the end of 2008 in any event, and the benefits flow overwhelmingly to the wealthiest Americans. Nearly half of the benefits of the capital gains and dividend cuts would go to households making more than $1 million annually. It's up to the Senate to resist this tax spending spree.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...120901696.html

[langal]

Nothing conservative about Bush except for his bible. Not his fiscal policies, not the Iraq war, nothing except for flag-burning and gay marriage.

I don't think most traditional conservative Republicans actually support Bush. I think a lot of them voted for him because they simply liked Kerry less.

Unfortunately - this pattern of spending hikes and tax cuts is precisely what the people want. It is political suicide to suggest defense cuts, education cuts, entitlement cuts, infrastructure cuts, pension cuts - just as it is political suicide to suggest tax increases. Historians may someday point to this time and say - "This is where the great Democracy experiment failed. It failed to account for the ignorance of the masses." We need to build an MCP type program to run things.

[Deckard]

Originally Posted by langal Nothing conservative about Bush except for his bible. Not his fiscal policies, not the Iraq war, nothing except for flag-burning and gay marriage. I don't think most traditional conservative Republicans actually support Bush. I think a lot of them voted for him because they simply liked Kerry less. Unfortunately - this pattern of spending hikes and tax cuts is precisely what the people want. It is political suicide to suggest defense cuts, education cuts, entitlement cuts, infrastructure cuts, pension cuts - just as it is political suicide to suggest tax increases. Historians may someday point to this time and say - "This is where the great Democracy experiment failed. It failed to account for the ignorance of the masses." We need to build an MCP type program to run things.

The "masses" were ignorant to reelect this fool, but you can't blame them for the policies of the Bush Administration and the Republican Congress. They are the ones who have failed the country, by not providing responsible leadership during a war, as you pointed out, and slashing taxes, especially for the rich and large corporations... during a war, and while running record deficits, as well as larding the budget with pork to the max. Yes, Democrats are responsible for much of the pork, but this is Bush's responsiblity, as well as the Republican "leadership."

Bush has yet, in the middle of his second term, to veto one bill. ONE BILL!!!

Unbelievable.

It's insane. What is equally insane is the passion with which some of the "masses" support this idiocy. What excuse have they? They like this "leadership" their party is providing the country? Madness.



Keep D&D Civil.

[langal]

Originally Posted by Deckard The "masses" were ignorant to reelect this fool, but you can't blame them for the policies of the Bush Administration and the Republican Congress. They are the ones who have failed the country, by not providing responsible leadership during a war, as you pointed out, and slashing taxes, especially for the rich and large corporations... during a war, and while running record deficits, as well as larding the budget with pork to the max. Yes, Democrats are responsible for much of the pork, but this is Bush's responsiblity, as well as the Republican "leadership." Bush has yet, in the middle of his second term, to veto one bill. ONE BILL!!! Unbelievable. It's insane. What is equally insane is the passion with which some of the "masses" support this idiocy. What excuse have they? They like this "leadership" their party is providing the country? Madness. Keep D&D Civil.

I meant general terms about tax cuts and spending. Can someone get elected president on platform of defense cuts? Pension cuts? Tax hikes? Medicare cuts? No. Plenty of pork as you pointed out - but the voting public generally wants their candidates to promise better defense, pensions, public health, increased education, etc. while lowering taxes.

[geeimsobored]

Originally Posted by langal I meant general terms about tax cuts and spending. Can someone get elected president on platform of defense cuts? Pension cuts? Tax hikes? Medicare cuts? No. Plenty of pork as you pointed out - but the voting public generally wants their candidates to promise better defense, pensions, public health, increased education, etc. while lowering taxes.

This is only partially true. I was at a talk by former federal reserve chairman and former economic advisor for President Clinton and he talked about how the Clinton administration was able to push through the massive spending cuts and even partial tax hikes in certain areas in order to cut the deficit. They portrayed this as a jobs relief program and framed it in terms of employment. There was a lot of speculation that this strategy wouldnt work but the spending cuts helped lower interest rates to a point where corporate growth allowed for some level of job growth.

In the end it comes down to how you frame issues. You can label defense cuts as making your military more "efficient" and "streamlined." You can label cuts in other areas as cutting down on "bureaucracy" and "wasteful spending." Its very easy to cut down on pork barrell spending without angering constituents. Hell Clinton shut down the government multiple times because of disputes with Congress on spending cuts. This administration simply hasn't tried and has catered way way too much to defense contractors and other corporations. Some level of pandering to corporations is inevitable but what we have now simply is unacceptable.

[hotballa]

Originally Posted by thadeus There are very few traditional conservatives on this board. Those who have identified themselves as such, don't appear to be lining up to support Dubya's policies.

dead on. Bush is the one of the most incompetent people to ever call themself a Republican or conservative. He has absolutely no control over his own administration, and his "what me worry" attitude is particularly infuriating to conservatives liek myself who know that the pork belly practices of this REPUBLICAN controlled congress and white house will come back to bite us in the near future. He has spent more money than any liberal in the white house. NO concept of why we cut taxes. STOP SPENDING

[Trader_Jorge]

George Bush doesn't TAX? Learn that FAX before a question you AX.

[langal]

Originally Posted by Trader_Jorge George Bush doesn't TAX? Learn that FAX before a question you AX.

what about the spending half of the equation? the original post didn't mention anything about taxes. The article only outlines spending patterns.

I think most of us conservatives supported the tax cuts - believing that economic growth would still result in growing revenues (as your graph points out) - it's the unbridled increase in non-military and military spending that is troubling.

I'm not a traditional conservative (i support gay marriage and drug legalitzation and abortion rights, etc. and I'm a YOF) - but I generally agree with the Cato Institute.

[Trader_Jorge]

Originally Posted by langal what about the spending half of the equation? the original post didn't mention anything about taxes. The article only outlines spending patterns.

The thread title says Bush is a "don't tax" conservative. That is what my graph was in response to. Yes, we are still operating in a budget deficit, albeit a relatively small one, with spending in FY 2005 projected to be about $2.4 trillion. The gap is narrowing, with tax receipts coming in so strong. It is not abnormal, nor unhealthy, to operate budget deficits in the short term. After the stock market bust, 9-11 and the War on Terror, it would be foolish not to expect a period of deficits. That's what we've seen, and now the tide is turning the other way.