Obama and Clinton do not believe in less market regulation than Perry, Bachman, Pawlenty, Cain, McCotter, or just about every Republican. Both liberals and conservatives believe in a balanced budget. That has nothing to do with being economically conservative/libertarian.
We obviously have different metrics by which to judge "economic conservatism." Do not presume that yours are the same as mine since we have never agreed on anything else and also since I am pretty much always right and you are pretty much always wrong.
It is not a debate. Captialism and free markets have nothing to do with the federal government having a balanced budget and those are the things that define an economic conservative. So when you say a president who passed 2000 pages of healthcare regulations is more economically conservative than every member of the Republican field, you are wrong. No definition of economic conservatism supports your claim. I will put it to you another way; if economic conservatism means having a balanced budget then being economically liberal means what? Not believing in a balanced budget? Hopefully, Obama will run on that platform in 2012.
Every politician since the beginning of time believes in that platform. "Read my lips, no new taxes." "We won't touch entitlements." "HEY! Let's fund Viagra subsidies!" etc. Nobody's big enough of an idiot to say it straight out, but there's a reason why for the last 30 years, only one president actually managed to run some semblance of a balanced budget (and guess who it was?).
I am using a more broad definition of conservatism, one to do with caution and a responsibly measured approach, where I would define liberalism by contrast to be more forward-thinking and, well, progressive. No seriously liberal economic policy has been pushed by any Democrat in any real position of power since maybe LBJ (please spare me the health care stuff which was based on Romney's plan and I believe Dole's) and since Bill Clinton, at least, it has been the Democrats that have been more cautious, more measured, more sober and more considerate when it comes to both taxes and spending. They have also been extremely pro-business, especially considering traditional Democratic party core values. On things to do with budgets, deficits, and economic policy, Democrats have become the conservatives (in the classic sense), taxing some but generally in line with spending, while Republicans have been the party of cut taxes and still spend. Which is more "conservative?" To tax and spend or to not tax and still spend? Incidentally, if the GOP still believed in anything they believed even just five years ago (let alone 40 years ago when conservatives were actually conservative) they would be climbing all over each other to take Obama's debt ceiling/deficit reduction offer. Instead they are rejecting everything they have ever said they wanted in order to preserve historically low taxes for the very richest Americans and corporations. That is not "conservative." It is insane.
That is by no means a definition of conservatism or liberalism. There is not one economic principle in that sentence just a bunch of platitudes. Depends what you're spending and what you are taxing and what you're budget is. Assuming you are referring to an environment where a government has tons of debt and is in the red and wants to spend to pay for entitlements, then your question is loaded since a conservative wouldn't spend at all. What people who label themselves as conservative or liberal do in practice has no bearing on the definition of the philosophy.
He understands the need for entitlement reform ( cue glynch and others screaming on how Social Security should never ever, be touched), and unlike the GOP, actually understands that if you want to deal with the deficit, PERHAPS THE SUPER RICH SHOULD NOT BE GETTING TAX CUTS. So yes, he's better than the GOP. And Batman I think is more or less right. I think of myself as somewhat right-wing, and I will support Obama. Better them than a bunch of populist nutjobs.
Really? ...right. You're just above the fray so much that you're dully repeating vastly oversimplified tea party sloganeering chapter and verse.
Do we not have a 14.5 trillion dollar debt? Does Obama not want a single-payer system? Government-run healthcare? Am I making this up or something? Hi-O, dismissive high horse. Good job, Sam.
Actually I would have more respect for your lame posturing if you had bothered to fabricate something rather than if you just repeated cliches about Obama's debt and socialized medicine. Instead you're making isilly assumptions and implications that belie an ignorance of basic facts (e.g., debt existed long before February 2009 and was going to grow no matter what) in order to reinforce a lame conclusion (Obama is a big spender and I don't care what the data shows!) As for your health care nonsequitur - so what if he endorsed single payer? That doesn't exactly help your "fiscally profligate" generalization. Pretty much every single reliable bit of data shows, time and time again, that a single payer system (or any system with reliable cost controls, including the Affordable Patient Care Act regime) is far more efficient, and far better for the government, from a long-run fiscal perspective, as far as cost controls, with the universal mandate (the one that Republicans en masse oppose) being the key cost control feature. So if your definition of fiscal conservative is "endorses a far more expensive and wasteful way of doing things" you are correct. Once again, you don't know the facts - dead horse, Lynus.
So they're all facts, then? And everyone else is stupid? If it's all so clear and concise then why is there any debate at all? Socialized medicine is "far more efficient" in a homogenized society, where the powers that be can prepare for certain predispositions that effect a given group of people. The last thing we have in America is a homogenized society. Socialized medicine has never been done on such a large scale, or in an attempt to cover such a diverse group of people with such diverse healthcare issues. It's a massive change, you can't make someone buy something, and it's friggin' expensive, so it's hardly a non-sequitur.
The Veterans Health Administration, the military health care system, the Indian Health Service, Medicare, and Medicaid, Australia, Canada, Britain, and every developed nation in the world pretty much say hi.
Actually, we have tried it for quite some time, you may have heard of these little programs called Medicare and Medicaid. And we are failing at it because we don't employ effective cost control mechanisms like a universal mandate...which you just unilaterally told us we coudn't do. I guess because cost controls aren't fiscally conservative enough? Anyway, welcome to 1966 Lynus. Bet on the Packers to win the NFL title.
I've said essentially the same thing here, over the years, many times. Dick Nixon couldn't find the door into today's Republican Party. Ike would be tossed out on his arse. Moderate Republicans of the past, like Senate Minority Leader Everett Dirksen, who was crucial to getting the 1964 Civil Rights Act passed, couldn't get out of a primary in today's GOP. Seeing George H. W. Bush turn himself into a pretzel attempting to snag the Republican nomination for president would be painful, and he would fail. I don't think many realize just how far to the right the GOP is now. They hear the crap on the media, rarely bother to vote, and when they do, actually believe the crap in the media. Why? Because they aren't engaged in the political process. They aren't paying attention. Every 4 years, they get mildly interested in the presidential election, and many more still don't bother to actually vote, much less educate themselves about the candidates and delve deeply into many sources of information, which is rediculously easy today.
I think the primary system actually discourages moderates. Imaging someone going for the GOP nomination who said he or she was actually okay with bumping taxes on millionaires or wanted to trim the defense budget.
You do realize that nothing in the ACA qualifies as government taking over the means of production or distribution of healthcare, right? If you believe that, consider not watching Fox, they are lying to you.
