The Definition of Hypocrisy
You have to hand it to Republicans, they have no shame.
“Congress cannot keep writing checks and simply pass IOUs to our children and grandchildren,” says Sen. John Cornyn, R-Texas.
House Minority Leader John Boehner, R-Ohio: “How much debt are we going to pile on future generations?”
Are these people for real? Where was this fiscal conservatism during the last eight years? From now on, every time a Republican whines about deficits/debt and taxes they should be reminded that they own the deficit/debt and that taxes are the price you pay for an irresponsible, drunken, eight year spending spree.
Republican leadership would be wise to tread carefully. The American people are desperate for solutions – something noticeably missing from the Republican platform – not revisionist history. Obstructionism won’t be viewed in a “patriotic” light, especially as unemployment figures soar. The time has come to turn their bumper sticker politics of Country First into reality.
Tags: Republicans
Republican leadership would be wise to tread carefully.
Republican leadership would be wise to apologize to America and slink away in the disgrace they have so rightfully earned.
But they never have been wise.
Spot on A1.
It is a wonder that any of these Republicans has the nerve to leave the house in the morning.
Democrats should answer every republican on the floor with nothing but a sarcastic “Really?” And maybe slow sarcastic clapping.
I fearRepublicans have done so much foundation work in the last 30 years demonizing Democrats as big spenders, they may actually be able to successfully pin the deficit on Democrats (in the public mind).
Thanks for pointing out the excesses of the last 8 years of spending and debt.
Do a quick search on the Democratic opposition to all that spending. Let me save you the trouble- there was none.
That’s right-none at all. Look in the mirror first.
These guys are asking the right questions and you don’t have an answer.
Mike, you don’t believe in the US Constitution, so will you please be quiet please.
“How much debt are we going to pile on future generations?”
Not a question these guys asked when BushCo wanted to put two wars on a credit card. Or a question they asked for every other damn thing BushCo wanted to spend money on, including spying on Americans. The current trillion dollar deficit is squarely a republican creature, as is the current financial meltdown, so these people are simply not to be trusted when it comes to talking about your money. Period.
Every time I read a Protack post it is like somebody running their fingernails down a chalkboard.
Listen up Mike! Republican President, Republican controlled Congress for six of the last seven years, surplus in the treasury in 2001 thanks to the Dems. and you honestly think you can spin this to be our fault????? Look in your own mirror and repeat after me — “Just because I say it’s so doesn’t make it so!!” Reality is a tough way to go Mike, but you ought to try it.
Do a quick search on the Democratic opposition to all that spending. Let me save you the trouble- there was none.
Obviously, Mike the Torturer, you didn’t take the trouble either. If you did, tell us how many times the MAJORITY OF THE DEM caucuses voted with Bush and the repubs and how many times they voted against Bush and the repubs?
You did take the trouble, you’d know that there was plenty of Democratic opposition to Bush’s spending. A consistent and strong majority, in fact.
You can return to your torture fantasies now.
Spot on again, A1.
Pandora,
I don’t think shame or self-reflection is a trait that Republican politicians have. Just think about the RNC chair race for another example.
Agreed, UI. But is it too much to hope for silence? The arrogant lying and willful stupidity displayed is breathtaking. Protack is the poster boy for both of these traits.
personally you all know as well as I do that the media is going to pain the GOP as the ones that have restraint. The Dems had 8 years to show they don’t spend money and pussed out multiple times.
Now, the GOP is goiing to look like the ones that are doing the will of the people and not spending money
DV,
I don’t think the will of the people is not to spend money. I really think people overestimate how important “national debt” is to voters. It matters to a vocal and politically-connected few. That’s my take anyway.
“From now on, every time a Republican whines about deficits/debt and taxes they should be reminded that they own the deficit/debt and that taxes are the price you pay for an irresponsible, drunken, eight year spending spree.”
Personally, I am to the left of center. That being said, Jason, I guess my question is, when is it going to be okay to be fiscally conservative? When is it going to be good enough in the mind of a through and through liberal to be mindful of our future? I get the mess-ups of the past eight years, but the past eight years did not paint the perfect picture of fiscal conservatism. So when is it okay to reach across the isle and try to accept fiscal conservatism as a political idealism of many people (and not just Republicans, but some of us that lean to the left as well)?
I am asking seriously and am not trying to be snide…just curious of your thoughts.
P.S. I meant to add that I am a Liberal who “whines about deficits/debt and taxes,” yet voted for Kerry/Obama, so I don’t feel that I own an “irresponsible, drunken, eight year spending spree.”
I am fiscally conservative, but that doesn’t mean I agree with the Bush policies. We need to come together from both sides of the table and find a policy that fits our economic leanings. What are your thoughts?
Call It… the answer is more technical than philosophical. If you look at the technical definition of GDP:
Consumption (consumer spending) is in the tank.
Gross investment (business investment) is in the tank.
Exports are in the tank.
So to stave off disaster, government spending has to pick up until one of the other factors recovers.
You cannot fix this by cutting spending – look at the equation. There is an argument that spending can be made more efficient. But spending cuts of any significance will make matters worse.
Tax cuts might provide a little stimulus by boosting Consumption, but not nearly as much as raw public spending would do.
The answer to your question is – you can start talking about spending cuts after either consumption or business investment picks up again. Until that time, fiscal conservatism consists of paying for as much spending as we can with taxes rather than with debt.
anon-
I think that I don’t disagree with you, if that makes sense. I agree that government spending is what will keep this economy afloat at this point in time. Now is not the time to cut taxes, and I am a firm believer that public spending is the way to attack the economic problems we are facing, instead of incurring further debt.
I guess what I was trying to say is that I don’t agree with Jason’s statement that believing in fiscal conservatism implicates one in the problems the Bush policies have created. In fact, I don’t think many people would argue that fiscal conservatism is NOT synonymous with the Bush spending spree and with the enlargement of the federal government under Bush.
I just think that it is counter intuitive to alienate fiscal conservatives by linking them to the Bush years. In my opinion, fiscal conservatives are a completely separate breed from social conservatives, and liberals should be trying to bring social conservatives over to their “side.”
Just my opinion.
Is it even possible to bring fiscal conservatives over or are they not even on the liberal radar? I’m curious what you all think.
Define “fiscal conservative.” I am not willing to grant the mantle of fiscal conservatism to a bunch of wingnut Republicans. The best fiscal conservatism we had was in the 1990s when Clinton restrained spending growth and raised taxes, and grew our way to prosperity and a balanced budget.
The Republicans who run around calling themselves fiscal conservatives aren’t going to help with that program.
I think that is the problem I am having with Jason’s statement. I know many people who consider themselves fiscal conservatives yet disagree with the Bush policies of the past 8 years.
For me personally–and please understand this is not the wikipedia definition–fiscal conservatism is a policy that cuts taxes and restrains spending. It also means running a balanced budget with a creative means of income.
Bush did not run his government this way. Obama, I believe, is attempting to do this with the exception of restraining spending (although I agree, like I said above, that gov’t spending is a good thing right now.).
Calling people “wignut republicans” is not a government of “change,” either. I mean, I don’t mean to sound idealistic or to say that I like social conservatives, but at what point does one side begin to bridge the divide?
Call It, my post was about hypocrisy – as in, suddenly caring about deficits/debt when Obama becomes President, but when Bush was President… not so much.
fiscal conservatism is a policy that cuts taxes and restrains spending. It also means running a balanced budget with a creative means of income.
Can you give one example of this scheme ever working in real life?
I know many people who consider themselves fiscal conservatives yet disagree with the Bush policies of the past 8 years.
Deathbed conversions are cheap, and even more meaningless if they voted for Bush in 2004 and McCain in 2008.