The MYTH of "Fiscal Conservatives"

[Sparkly]

After Chimpy's speech last night, Scarborough and Tucker had a moment of mutual love and congratulations for being "Fiscal Conservatives," claiming there were so few of them left.

Republicans, for as long as I can recall, have NOT been fiscal conservatives!! Reagan wasn't, Poppy wasn't, and Chimpy certainly isn't -- all three made historic accumulations to the national debt.

Here's the problem: their definition of "fiscal conservatism" involves stinginess on social programs, infrastructure, job training, urban development, veteran's benefits, etc., BUT, it involves playing Santa Claus to their wealthy contributors and big business. There's nothing "fiscally conservative" about that.

Clinton was the only one who balanced the budget and started to get the debt under control. He was faulted as "liberal" for investing in the lower and middle classes, and while he may be faulted for being overly-friendly to business, he did establish regulations (for example, making them pay for cleaning up their own environmental messes).

If "fiscal conservatism" it's about "conserving" money, then balancing the budget, paying off debt, and keeping a surplus seems to me to fit that definition. It means "tax and spend" in the sense of paying as we go, rather than "borrow and spend," leaving debt for the next three generations. These people are FAR from "fiscally conservative."

I suggest we need new language for economic policy positions.

[Beware the Beast Man]

1. In RW speak, "fiscal conservative"="cutting shit we don't like."

You are absolutely correct. There is nothing wrong with fiscal conservatism in theory- I think everyone would like to see a government run effectively with less spending and no harm to programs vital to the public interest. That is simply not the case in the last three Republican administrations.
The big lie about liberals is that they are spend-happy with the people's money, which is simply not the case. I like to think we strive for more efficient government spending.

[papau]

2. Well said :-)

:toast:

:-)

[Stinky The Clown]

3. Precisely right!

The term 'tax and spend' is their framing, not a reflection of fact.

I'm as liberal as anyone - socally and financially - but by the common wisdom, I would be a fiscal conservative. In very basic terms, that means I want to see the government operate the same way I do. Earn money (levy taxes) and spend less than you earn, saving a bit for a rainy day (no pun intended).

Yup .... the conservatives are far less trustworthy with my money than any damned liberal I know of.

[zbdent]

4. The myth of "Fiscal Conservatives" was blown out of the water with

"The Triumph of Politics".

Interesting read about how Ronald Reagan kept f*cking up the budget, and how the magic asterisk came into being . . .

[Callisto]

5. Obviously the only thing to do

is invade those conservatives homes, convert them all to Liberalism, and start all over again.

Of course I'm joking- BUT this is nothing new. Republicans in general for the last 20 years have relied on the ol "say one thing and do another" approach. They speak in platitudes, promises, while clinging to the Flag and thumping the Bible.They wear really nice suits and always sparkle as well...;-)
As a Liberal Christian I find the thumping of the Bible the most repulsive of all, but I digress....

You can suggest new language all you want to, but truth told, the message of the Dem's needs to be clear- we can get rich and help poor folks too. No one left behind, and mean it. A leg up for your fellow man, but at the same time promote self reliance(I am not speaking of the kind the Freeper seem to think should exist) but basic things like education, jobs, homes, that kind of thing.It's my greatest hope the the Dem's can put out a decent candidate that not only will win the next election , but will also unite the country again much in the way Bill Clinton did. For better or for worse, the peeps of America loved him and listened to him, and he did a pretty good job over all. I know I did better .

[Telly Savalas]

6. It's been nearly 50 years since a GOP president signed a balanced budget

It doesn't really bug me when dicks like Scarborough and Tucker blather on about "fiscal conservatism". After all, they get paid good money to be detached from reality. What drives me totally bananas is when someone posts here at DU, getting all teary-eyed about how the "neocons" stole the Republican party from "true conservatives". I don't really understand the purpose of such delusional thinking, but its effect is to divert attention away from a real progressive agenda.

[Skittles]

7. THANK YOU TELLY

the conservatives have LOST THEIR WAY? UH HUH.

[Telly Savalas]

8. You're welcome.

I'm tempted to start a thread in GD on this, because I've already seen about 5 instances of this "conservatives have lost their way" nonsense today. I'm really losing patience with it.

[Skittles]

9. I have been sick of it for quite some time

if there's a sense that republican intentions were EVER noble, it is the product of the same crap that produced "bush was a great leader following 9/11". PLEASE!!!!!!

Do it Telly, make that post.

[Sparkly]

12. Did I say that?

Were they "fiscal conservatives" 50 years ago? I don't know, I'm not saying anything about what they used to be. I'm just saying that as long as I can remember, they've been reckless borrow-and-spenders, and they spend on the wrong priorities. :shrug:

[snippy]

10. Bush's deficit spending is typical for a republican president.

A comparison of government spending and the annual federal deficits accumulated since 1960 under republican presidents and under democratic presidents shows that republicans are bigger spenders and run much larger deficits than democrats. Bush has been about average as a big spender for republican presidents. If Bush was a democrat he would be the biggest spending democrat since WWII.

The Kennedy/Johnson administrations accumulated deficits of $53.5 billion or $269.9 billion in constant 2000 dollars. Annual spending by the federal government averaged 18.8% of GDP and the annual deficit never exceeded 3% of GDP.

The Nixon/Ford administrations accumulated deficits of $265.5 billion or $798.5 billion in constant 2000 dollars. Annual spending by the federal government averaged 19.9% of GDP and the annual deficit exceeded 3% of GDP 2 times.

The Carter administration accumulated deficits of $252.7 billion or $519.4 billion in constant 2000 dollars. Annual spending by the federal government averaged 21.2% of GDP and the annual deficit never exceeded 3% of GDP.

The Reagan administration accumulated deficits of $1,412.2 billion or $2,082.3 billion in constant 2000 dollars. Annual spending by the federal government averaged 22.3% of GDP and the annual deficit exceeded 3% of GDP 7 times.

The Bush the Lesser administration accumulated deficits of $1,035.8 billion or $1,241.5 billion in constant 2000 dollars. Annual spending by the federal government averaged 21.9% of GDP and the annual deficit exceeded 3% of GDP 4 times.

The Clinton administration accumulated a surplus of $62.5 billion or $15.9 billion in constant 2000 dollars. Annual spending by the federal government averaged 19.6% of GDP and the annual deficit never exceeded 3% of GDP.

The Bush the Liar administration has in just three years accumulated deficits of $947.5 billion. and projects additional accumulated deficits during his administration of $1,612.5 billion. Annual spending by the federal government has averaged 19.7% of GDP (19.9% with the current fiscal year estimate) and the annual deficit has exceeded 3% of GDP 2 times and almost certainly will again this fiscal year and probably the next fiscal year as well.

Thus, of the slightly more than $3.9 trillion in accumulated deficits since 1960, more than $3.6 trillion has been accumulated under republican presidents while only about $244 billion has been accumulated under democratic presidents. In constant 2000 dollars the numbers are more than $5.8 trillion in total accumulated deficits with about $5.1 trillion accumulated under republican presidents and about $700 billion accumulated under democratic presidents.

And of the 15 times since 1960 that the annual deficit has exceeded 3% of GDP, every single time it was under a republican president.

http://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/budget/fy2006/sheets/hist01z3.xls(Note: The first year of a presidential term operates under the budget and appropriations of the last year of the preceeding presidential term, except for any supplemental appropriation bills passed during such first year. The summary above does not include any such supplemental bills.)

[FormerDittoHead]

11. EVERYTHING that Republicans say is a myth... n/t