Championship Subdivision Football | FCS Football | Stadiums | Blogs | Forums

Why anyone claiming to be a fiscal conservative is probably wrong
By Michael Lind

...The truth is that there are no genuine progressives who are "fiscal conservatives." Nor are there any genuinely centrist "fiscal conservatives," if by the political center we mean not the center of opinion in corporate boardrooms and the corporate media but the center of opinion in the American electorate, which overwhelmingly supports Social Security and Medicare. The fiscal conservatives identified as such by the media are either conservative Republicans, like David Walker and the billionaire Pete Peterson, who funds much of America’s deficit hawk propaganda out of his own personal fortune, or from the neoliberal wing of the Democratic Party, like Alice Rivlin and Isabel Sawhill. Their unpopular minority view of middle-class entitlements puts all of these "fiscal conservatives," Republicans and Democrats alike, well to the right of center in the United States.

Until recently, it was still possible for journalists to claim that there is a divide in the Republican Party between budget-busting "supply-siders" and budget-balancing "fiscal conservatives." But the "fiscal conservatism" of Paul Ryan, who is expected to chair the House Budget Committee in the new Republican-majority House, is indistinguishable from what the economist Bruce Bartlett calls orthodox "starve-the-beast" supply-side conservatism. And by proposing further tax cuts for the rich, cuts in Social Security for the middle class and the reduction of government to a share of GDP smaller than it had under Ronald Reagan, Erskine Bowles and Alan Simpson have destroyed any residual distinction between "fiscal conservatism" and plain old right-wing economics.

Conservatives have a right to their views. But their minority position on entitlements should not be over-represented in public debate. It is dishonest for the same minority to pretend to represent two-thirds of the political spectrum, with a similar agenda championed both by economic conservatives who are openly on the right and by "fiscal conservatives" who pretend to be centrists. This political and intellectual reflagging operation should fool nobody. Economic conservatives in both parties should have the courage and honesty to appear in public under their true colors, rather than under the false flag of centrism. It is time for the weasel words "fiscal conservatism" to be dropped from public discourse altogether.

kalm wrote:We all think we're fiscal conservatives, but as the article points out, few of us (regardless of ideology) really are. What's more, those who beleive in true conk economics are a clear minority.

Why anyone claiming to be a fiscal conservative is probably wrong
By Michael Lind

...The truth is that there are no genuine progressives who are "fiscal conservatives." Nor are there any genuinely centrist "fiscal conservatives," if by the political center we mean not the center of opinion in corporate boardrooms and the corporate media but the center of opinion in the American electorate, which overwhelmingly supports Social Security and Medicare. The fiscal conservatives identified as such by the media are either conservative Republicans, like David Walker and the billionaire Pete Peterson, who funds much of America’s deficit hawk propaganda out of his own personal fortune, or from the neoliberal wing of the Democratic Party, like Alice Rivlin and Isabel Sawhill. Their unpopular minority view of middle-class entitlements puts all of these "fiscal conservatives," Republicans and Democrats alike, well to the right of center in the United States.

Until recently, it was still possible for journalists to claim that there is a divide in the Republican Party between budget-busting "supply-siders" and budget-balancing "fiscal conservatives." But the "fiscal conservatism" of Paul Ryan, who is expected to chair the House Budget Committee in the new Republican-majority House, is indistinguishable from what the economist Bruce Bartlett calls orthodox "starve-the-beast" supply-side conservatism. And by proposing further tax cuts for the rich, cuts in Social Security for the middle class and the reduction of government to a share of GDP smaller than it had under Ronald Reagan, Erskine Bowles and Alan Simpson have destroyed any residual distinction between "fiscal conservatism" and plain old right-wing economics.

Conservatives have a right to their views. But their minority position on entitlements should not be over-represented in public debate. It is dishonest for the same minority to pretend to represent two-thirds of the political spectrum, with a similar agenda championed both by economic conservatives who are openly on the right and by "fiscal conservatives" who pretend to be centrists. This political and intellectual reflagging operation should fool nobody. Economic conservatives in both parties should have the courage and honesty to appear in public under their true colors, rather than under the false flag of centrism. It is time for the weasel words "fiscal conservatism" to be dropped from public discourse altogether.

http://www.salon.com/news/economics/ind ... nservatism" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Ivytalk wrote:Gawd, kalm, do you never tire of quoting Michael Lind? He's every Donk's favorite ex-Conk. In that respect, he's replaced the insufferable Kevin Phillips.

I still think the Bowles-Simpson proposals contain some good ideas, like phasing out the mortgage interest deduction and gradually raising the SS retirement age. Wheteher the entire commission gets around to approving them is another issue entirely. Regardless, the new Congress should take on the deficit issue promptly.

kalm wrote:

Ivytalk wrote:Gawd, kalm, do you never tire of quoting Michael Lind? He's every Donk's favorite ex-Conk. In that respect, he's replaced the insufferable Kevin Phillips.

I still think the Bowles-Simpson proposals contain some good ideas, like phasing out the mortgage interest deduction and gradually raising the SS retirement age. Wheteher the entire commission gets around to approving them is another issue entirely. Regardless, the new Congress should take on the deficit issue promptly.

Wasn't aware I'd quoted him before.

In any event, the SS trust fund is solvent until 2037-41 and that's assuming no change in economic conditions. After that time it would still be able to fund 3/4 of benefits. If we see growth between now and then you push those dates back even further. Besides, raising the entitlement age would increase the size of the workforce which isn't very good for the unemployment rate.

Cap'n Cat wrote:

kalm wrote:
Wasn't aware I'd quoted him before.

In any event, the SS trust fund is solvent until 2037-41 and that's assuming no change in economic conditions. After that time it would still be able to fund 3/4 of benefits. If we see growth between now and then you push those dates back even further. Besides, raising the entitlement age would increase the size of the workforce which isn't very good for the unemployment rate.

An intangible here, but, nevertheless, a legit one.....Man, people in America are fvcking tired of their run-and-gun capitalist consumer lives and they do not want to have to wait longer to get out and receive bennies.

My opinion.

Chizzang wrote:Historical Note: The oldest Lie in American Politics is Fiscal Conservatism
There has never been (not even once) a Republican President after 4 or 8 years leave office with a smaller federal government than he was inaugurated with - not once - ever... Even when they had majorities in the Senate and House. In fact on the occasion when they did have complete control they spent EVEN MORE...

Yet

We are routinely beaten over the head with "Republican = Fiscal Responsibility"

It's the oldest Lie in American Politics...

Wedgebuster wrote:

Chizzang wrote:Historical Note: The oldest Lie in American Politics is Fiscal Conservatism
There has never been (not even once) a Republican President after 4 or 8 years leave office with a smaller federal government than he was inaugurated with - not once - ever... Even when they had majorities in the Senate and House. In fact on the occasion when they did have complete control they spent EVEN MORE...

Yet

We are routinely beaten over the head with "Republican = Fiscal Responsibility"

It's the oldest Lie in American Politics...

But, but, with all the evil doers out there doing their evil...we have to wait on getting a Republican in the White House to effectively start a war somewheres to protect us from all this evil.

And we know what them wars can end up costing.

Chizzang wrote:

Wedgebuster wrote:
But, but, with all the evil doers out there doing their evil...we have to wait on getting a Republican in the White House to effectively start a war somewheres to protect us from all this evil.

And we know what them wars can end up costing.

My only problem with the fact that every republican president since Eisenhower has started a war - is that they have been wars designed to forward a corporate global agenda - not actually for security reasons...

AZGrizFan wrote:

Chizzang wrote:

My only problem with the fact that every republican president since Eisenhower has started a war - is that they have been wars designed to forward a corporate global agenda - not actually for security reasons...

Really? What war did Nixon start? Ford? And Reagan? I don't remember anything more than a few skirmishes (Grenada being the worst with a whopping 19 US deaths) under Reagan's watch...

Was GW's Kuwait war in '91 not justified? Most (outside of Iraq) would say a resounding YES to that.

So, when you say "every republican president since Eisenhower has started a war", what you really meant to say was NO republican president since Eisenhower has started a war UNTIL GWB.

Cap'n Cat wrote:

AZGrizFan wrote:
Really? What war did Nixon start? Ford? And Reagan? I don't remember anything more than a few skirmishes (Grenada being the worst with a whopping 19 US deaths) under Reagan's watch...

Was GW's Kuwait war in '91 not justified? Most (outside of Iraq) would say a resounding YES to that.

So, when you say "every republican president since Eisenhower has started a war", what you really meant to say was NO republican president since Eisenhower has started a war UNTIL GWB.

You're so fucked, Goober. Nixon accelerated bombing in Vietnam like no other motherfvcker. He also went into neutral countries and bombed the piss outta them, you blindfolded RushConk dork. That asshole, Reagan, supported mass murderers and baby killers in Central America. Ford was in office for two fvcking years, so forget his lame ass.

Bush I's war with Iraq was immoral and all about money and oil and, then, the fvcker and his incompetent lieutenant, Schwartzkopf, didn't even complete the job, giving his wayward son the opportunity to go in again and waste another generation of American soldiers.

Was Dick Cheney the principal at your high school, or something? The textbooks written by Halliburton apparatchniks?

AZGrizFan wrote:

Cap'n Cat wrote:


You're so fucked, Goober. Nixon accelerated bombing in Vietnam like no other motherfvcker. He also went into neutral countries and bombed the piss outta them, you blindfolded RushConk dork. That asshole, Reagan, supported mass murderers and baby killers in Central America. Ford was in office for two fvcking years, so forget his lame ass.

Bush I's war with Iraq was immoral and all about money and oil and, then, the fvcker and his incompetent lieutenant, Schwartzkopf, didn't even complete the job, giving his wayward son the opportunity to go in again and waste another generation of American soldiers.

Was Dick Cheney the principal at your high school, or something? The textbooks written by Halliburton apparatchniks?

Right. So, to summarize, Nixon (a Republican president) didn't start a war. He finished one. Ford ( a Republican president) didn't start a war. Reagan (a Republican president) didn't start a war. Bush I started a war that 95% of the world supported him in.

Got it. Thanks for the confirmation.

Cap'n Cat wrote:

AZGrizFan wrote:
Really? What war did Nixon start? Ford? And Reagan? I don't remember anything more than a few skirmishes (Grenada being the worst with a whopping 19 US deaths) under Reagan's watch...

Was GW's Kuwait war in '91 not justified? Most (outside of Iraq) would say a resounding YES to that.

So, when you say "every republican president since Eisenhower has started a war", what you really meant to say was NO republican president since Eisenhower has started a war UNTIL GWB.

You're so fucked, Goober. Nixon accelerated bombing in Vietnam like no other motherfvcker. He also went into neutral countries and bombed the piss outta them, you blindfolded RushConk dork. That asshole, Reagan, supported mass murderers and baby killers in Central America. Ford was in office for two fvcking years, so forget his lame ass.

Bush I's war with Iraq was immoral and all about money and oil and, then, the fvcker and his incompetent lieutenant, Schwartzkopf, didn't even complete the job, giving his wayward son the opportunity to go in again and waste another generation of American soldiers.

Was Dick Cheney the principal at your high school, or something? The textbooks written by Halliburton apparatchniks?

Chizzang wrote:

Cap'n Cat wrote:


You're so fucked, Goober. Nixon accelerated bombing in Vietnam like no other motherfvcker. He also went into neutral countries and bombed the piss outta them, you blindfolded RushConk dork. That asshole, Reagan, supported mass murderers and baby killers in Central America. Ford was in office for two fvcking years, so forget his lame ass.

Bush I's war with Iraq was immoral and all about money and oil and, then, the fvcker and his incompetent lieutenant, Schwartzkopf, didn't even complete the job, giving his wayward son the opportunity to go in again and waste another generation of American soldiers.

Was Dick Cheney the principal at your high school, or something? The textbooks written by Halliburton apparatchniks?

Look it's no big deal...
AZ is a banker - he thinks that only poor people steal in the face of rich guys baling out rich guys to the tune of trillions... and that the system is equal for everybody

So of course Reagan in central America and The war on Communism were "not wars" and of course Nixons invasion of Cambodia and carpet bombing civilians is "Normal" republican stuff... besides Cambodia was filled with poor people who probably stole stuff

When Richard Nixon campaigned for President in 1968, he loudly and repeatedly asserted he had a plan to end the war in Vietnam. When news came out that we had invaded Cambodia, with no warning, no knowledge and no press on April 29th of 1970, it was largely seen as a betrayal of a pledge to end the war in Southeast Asia (they didn't call him Tricky Dick for nothing) and we were doomed to stay in an endless war forever.

Don;t even make me talk about the war in 1991 that all republicans have conveniently forgotten about - as well as the thousands of Post Traumatic Stress disorder former soldiers that they wish would just "get a job" and quit being such pussies...

too hysterical...

Chizzang wrote:

Cap'n Cat wrote:


You're so fucked, Goober. Nixon accelerated bombing in Vietnam like no other motherfvcker. He also went into neutral countries and bombed the piss outta them, you blindfolded RushConk dork. That asshole, Reagan, supported mass murderers and baby killers in Central America. Ford was in office for two fvcking years, so forget his lame ass.

Bush I's war with Iraq was immoral and all about money and oil and, then, the fvcker and his incompetent lieutenant, Schwartzkopf, didn't even complete the job, giving his wayward son the opportunity to go in again and waste another generation of American soldiers.

Was Dick Cheney the principal at your high school, or something? The textbooks written by Halliburton apparatchniks?

Look it's no big deal...
AZ is a banker - he thinks that only poor people steal in the face of rich guys baling out rich guys to the tune of trillions... and that the system is equal for everybody

So of course Reagan in central America and The war on Communism were "not wars" and of course Nixons invasion of Cambodia and carpet bombing civilians is "Normal" republican stuff... besides Cambodia was filled with poor people who probably stole stuff

When Richard Nixon campaigned for President in 1968, he loudly and repeatedly asserted he had a plan to end the war in Vietnam. When news came out that we had invaded Cambodia, with no warning, no knowledge and no press on April 29th of 1970, it was largely seen as a betrayal of a pledge to end the war in Southeast Asia (they didn't call him Tricky Dick for nothing) and we were doomed to stay in an endless war forever.

Don;t even make me talk about the war in 1991 that all republicans have conveniently forgotten about - as well as the thousands of Post Traumatic Stress disorder former soldiers that they wish would just "get a job" and quit being such pussies...

too hysterical...

AZGrizFan wrote:
So, to summarize: You stated every Republican since Eisenhower had started a war and, when faced with facts, have since changed your argument. ....too hysterical, indeed.

Got it.

closed circuit to Cleetus: I've never once stated that Nixon wasn't a war monger, but he INHERITED that war....granted he expanded it, but he did not START it. Neither did Ford start a war. Neither did Reagan (again, unless your definition of war is fairly loose). And I clearly haven't forgotten about 1991, as it was addressed in my initial post on your erroneous claim.

Cap'n Cat wrote:

AZGrizFan wrote:
So, to summarize: You stated every Republican since Eisenhower had started a war and, when faced with facts, have since changed your argument. ....too hysterical, indeed.

Got it.

closed circuit to Cleetus: I've never once stated that Nixon wasn't a war monger, but he INHERITED that war....granted he expanded it, but he did not START it. Neither did Ford start a war. Neither did Reagan (again, unless your definition of war is fairly loose). And I clearly haven't forgotten about 1991, as it was addressed in my initial post on your erroneous claim.

And that's good....HOW??????????




And quit blowing Reagan. The guy is dead and he was a fvck. Your minimalizing of all the deaths at the hands of that Great Satan is offensive.

Chizzang wrote:

AZGrizFan wrote: So, to summarize: You stated every Republican since Eisenhower had started a war and, when faced with facts, have since changed your argument. ....too hysterical, indeed.

Got it.

closed circuit to Cleetus: I've never once stated that Nixon wasn't a war monger, but he INHERITED that war....granted he expanded it, but he did not START it. Neither did Ford start a war. Neither did Reagan (again, unless your definition of war is fairly loose). And I clearly haven't forgotten about 1991, as it was addressed in my initial post on your erroneous claim.

Hey, try to have some fun you curmudgeon...
Yes indeed Gerald Ford did not "start a war" two points for you - but -

Reagan was a war monger:
After the 1980 election Ronald Reagan changed American policy in Central America and specifically in El Salvador...
Reagan instilling terror in American citizens about the expanding Red Army of Communism (evil RED aggression) throughout the wold and in Central America...used that to prop up a nice puppet Regime

The Reagan administration sent troops and substantially increased both military and economic funding of a brutal Regime - With US troops pretending to "not be there" the civil war raged on in El Salvador...Fueld by US aid

The Terrorist government harshly repressed freedoms and any dissent and at least 70,000 people lost their lives in killings and bombing raids waged against civilians throughout the countryside. The country's infrastructure had crumbled, and the nation and actually the U.N. negotiated the peace treaty that is still in place today and was only put into effect after an investigation...

But anyway... it's always fun to play POKE the sleeping dog with AZ

It is my belief that if Reagan were in power for 8 more years we would have been at war with literally the whole world...

Cap'n Cat wrote:Game, set, match, Chizzie and Cappy, winners of Conk bashing doubles tournament play.

BlueHen86 wrote:Nixon - expanded an existing war, but then got us out
Ford - ???
Reagan - got us into small fights, but he at least had an exit strategy, didn't get us into something we couldn't out of
Bush I - first Gulf War, completely justified and exit strategy was a good one
Bush II - Afghanistan - justifed, except he took his eye off the ball and got us into... Iraq - unjustifed, no exit strategy.

Bush II is the only Republican since Ike that I have a problem with when it comes to starting wars.

Chizzang wrote:

BlueHen86 wrote:Nixon - expanded an existing war, but then got us out
Ford - ???
Reagan - got us into small fights, but he at least had an exit strategy, didn't get us into something we couldn't out of
Bush I - first Gulf War, completely justified and exit strategy was a good one
Bush II - Afghanistan - justifed, except he took his eye off the ball and got us into... Iraq - unjustifed, no exit strategy.

Bush II is the only Republican since Ike that I have a problem with when it comes to starting wars.

Let me assure you if 70,000 US citizens had been killed like in El Salvador - would you think it was a small fight - but I appreciate your perspective...

It's a typical attitude of Americans because so little actually happens on our soil - nothing is really that big of a deal...