[TaebownzBJJ]

Originally Posted by icantstandit

OK. There are many types of conservatives and liberals? Can we agree to that?

But fiscally, he's a Neocon (or military-keynesian liberal, which is sort of an oxymoron)...

True "fiscal liberals" believe in creating social programs, healthcare and the like... programs that benefit DOMESTIC society. Spending on the military is not considered "fiscally liberal", for it tends to benefit the defense industry, although there are macro effects. What Bush does is considered military keynesianism:

Military Keynesianism is a government economic policy in which the government devotes large amounts of spending to the military in an effort to increase economic growth. This is a specific variation on Keynesian economics, developed by English economist John Maynard Keynes. Instances commonly supplied as examples of such policies are Germany in the 1930s and the United States in the 1980s, although whether these assessments are accurate is the subject of vigorous debate.

Neocons also rack up the fed spending, but they do it on military spending and borrowing, whereas fiscal liberal do so on social programs, and such.

My much longer original response shorted to:

Yes, I would agree that he is a "neo-con". Failed neo-con policies do not reflect poorly on true conservative policies, at least to those educated enough to know the difference.

One of the very few areas in which he is definitely leaning conservative is tax cuts, which have worked wonderfully, btw.

[icantstandit]

Originally Posted by KingSnake

Bush is not Keynesian.

In what way is he not? That it isn't centrally controlled by the Fed?

Our military spending and strategy is NOT controlled by the Fed? I always thought it was...

[icantstandit]

Originally Posted by t-dizzle

"military-keynesian liberal"

yEah i dig that i haven't heard that describe his adminstration before, but i think its accurate.

It is much better than "fiscal liberal" which is generally pro-social spending, and Bush is definitely NOT pro-social spending.

He really combines the two- conservative tax cuts and cutting social spending, neo-con outrageous spending on the military and general fiscal insanity...

[KingSnake]

Originally Posted by TaebownzBJJ

One of the very few areas in which he is definitely leaning conservative is tax cuts, which have worked wonderfully, btw.

At what?

Raising tax revenue now?

Under Bush II, the tax cuts led to a 6.7% decline in revenue for the first 4 years of his presidency. Because his spending increases far outpaced the decrease in government revenue, the total national debt outstanding increased 41%.

Even the Administration does not project that revenues will continue to grow at their recent rates or that the tax cuts will pay for themselves. Under the revenue assumptions in the Office of Management and Budget’s Mid-Session Review, real per-person revenues will grow at an annual average rate of just 0.8 percent between 2000 and 2011, only about half the growth rate during the 1980s and less than one-fourth the growth rate during the 1990s.

Even the CBO and the joint committee on taxation do not make claims that the tax cuts will pay for themselves.

1980s

Average Economic Growth 2.0%Average Revenue Growth 1.7%

1990s

Average Economic Growth 2.0%Average Revenue Growth 3.5%

2000-2011,

Average Economic Growth 2.1%Average Revenue Growth 0.8%

So how did the tax cuts work wonderfully again?


BTW I'm for tax cuts, but not trickle down economics coupled with a spend thrift congress.

[t-dizzle]

Keynes asserted the importance of aggregate demand for goods as the driving factor of the economy, especially in periods of downturn. From this he argued that government policies could be used to promote demand at a macro level, to fight high unemployment and deflation of the sort seen during the 1930s.

* personal consumption expenditures (C) or "consumption," demand by households and unattached individuals; its determination is described by the consumption function.

* gross private domestic investment (I), demand by business firms and some individuals, for new factories, machinery, computer software, housing, other structures, and inventories.

* gross government investment and consumption expenditures (G).

* net exports (NX and sometimes (X-M)), i.e., net demand by the rest of the world for the country's output.

I am looking to find some shit about bush's influence on aggregate demand, but i think that Bush talking about putting dollars into people's pockets, increasing disposable income, and the need to offset a off economic cycle would fit way more into The Keynesian Model than a pure supply siders like Reagan.

"Tonight I propose the creation of a Gulf Opportunity Zone, encompassing the region of the disaster in Louisiana and Mississippi and Alabama. Within this zone, we should provide immediate incentives for job-creating investment, tax relief for small businesses, incentives to companies that create jobs, and loans and loan guarantees for small businesses, including minority-owned enterprises, to get them up and running again. It is entrepreneurship that creates jobs and opportunity; it is entrepreneurship that helps break the cycle of poverty; and we will take the side of entrepreneurs as they lead the economic revival of the Gulf region."

[InternetHero]

Originally Posted by icantstandit

And my point is that those same people - Buckley, Horowitz, Kristol- were proclaiming Bush a "true conservative" and the "heir to the Reagan legacy" just 3-4 short years ago.

It wasn't until they saw him failing that they started to say this.

AND YOU BETTER BELIEVE IT... if Bush were winning and popular, these same conservative thinkers would be claiming Bush as their own, saying things like "Bush proves that conservative ideology is the ideal course for this country."

Buckley is definately being a flippy flopper. (And there are others like Sapphire.)

But I think in general a lot of conservative thinkers were pretty stable about their opinions.

[v1tal1]

Bush is the definition of Kinesian Socialism. He always has been. He does only what is necessary to be viewed as a conservative--usually proponing social issue rhetoric like gay marriage, etc.


As someone who was well aquanted with the conservative movement throughout, there was great displeasure in the conservative community with Bush receiving the nomination; granted some relief in RINO McCain not getting the nod, though. I would liken it to last election the conundrum the Dems were in--there just wasn't a noteworthy candidate.

[Tony Soporno]

There are key differences between paleo-cons and neo-cons, a lot of paleo-cons resent Bush, and have felt that way even before he was elected. Therefore, paleo-cons can criticize Bush without being hypocrites. It's the same as liberals and leftists criticizing moderate Democrats.

[TaebownzBJJ]

Originally Posted by icantstandit

It is much better than "fiscal liberal" which is generally pro-social spending, and Bush is definitely NOT pro-social spending.

He really combines the two- conservative tax cuts and cutting social spending, neo-con outrageous spending on the military and general fiscal insanity...

Which social programs has it cut? I always forget this one and need reminding...

[TaebownzBJJ]

Originally Posted by KingSnake

At what?

Raising tax revenue now?

Under Bush II, the tax cuts led to a 6.7% decline in revenue for the first 4 years of his presidency. Because his spending increases far outpaced the decrease in government revenue, the total national debt outstanding increased 41%.


Even the CBO and the joint committee on taxation do not make claims that the tax cuts will pay for themselves.

<snipped out all the crazy HTML>

So how did the tax cuts work wonderfully again?


BTW I'm for tax cuts, but not trickle down economics coupled with a spend thrift congress.

You didn't hear the news recently? Everyone, including all the liberal papers, are shocked, SHOCKED that revenue is up, despite the tax cuts. Shocking, I say, shocking.

BTW, revenue wasn't so hot in the first term for a number of reasons, none of which had anything to do with the tax cut, other than, perhaps, making it more necessary. A slight recession which started under Clinton/Gore and 9/11 were big contributing factors.