Don't ever forget, The LAST EIGHT YEARS is what FISCAL CONSERVATISM looks like.

[Dawgs]

Don't let anyone ever tell you that it does work.

Lower taxes for the rich and trickle down economics does not work. It never has and it never will.

George Bush and his Republican congress failed our economy twice, and we will never forget.

President Obama will prove that giving breaks to the least of us WILL work; just like it did under other Democrat Presidents.

This can be the start of the end of the Republicans; if we make sure that no one ever forgets.

Sincerely,

Dawgs

[fascisthunter]

1. The Republicans Have Proven Tax Breaks for the Rich are Detrimental to an Economy

and very bad for Democracy itself. Then again, most here already knew that... it was like watching a freight train come right at us all, thanks to a bunch of ideological corrupt fools...

[BeFree]

2. Wrong

The last eight years is not an example of being fiscally conservative. It is an example of being quite liberal with our money - spending it on wars, miltary, and welfare to banks. The debt is historic and America is broke. That is not being fiscally conservative by any definition.

[H2O Man]

5. I agree. n/t

[Two Americas]

10. it doesn't matter

It doesn't matter what conservatism "really" means. What matters is what the self-described conservatives do.

The conservatives, Republicans, were opposed to federal spending when the money went to things that helped the working people. They have no problem with it when it goes to the wealthy few. They consistently support the interests of the wealthy few over the interests of the people. Their "ideology" is a secondary concern, and more of a sales and marketing pitch to fool the public than anything else.

Words and definitions are not what impoverishes and oppresses people, it is the actions of those who call themselves conservatives, and their actions and the consequences of their actions would be the same regardless of how we define words or what they claim their "ideology" to be.

[BeFree]

12. So

Have we had a conservative fiscal policy, or what, these last eight years?

[Two Americas]

15. a rose by any other name

We have had rule of, by, and for the wealthy and powerful few. I don't care what name they, or we place on that.

Many conservatives - self described - who are now saying "no, no, no that wasn't 'real' conservatism, or 'real' capitalism'" are trying to restore their image and revive the same game.

These labels and ideologies are of no value when they serve only to confuse and mislead us. Lincoln was able to put the struggle into plain terms.

"Labor is prior to and independent of capital. Capital is only the fruit of labor, and could never have existed if labor had not first existed. Labor is the superior of capital, and deserves much the higher consideration."

[BeFree]

16. Well

Working within the confines of the OP, which is the mannerly thing to do, the use of its words rightly restricting us to that frame of discussion, I asked, is the OPer right that we have witnessed 8 years of fiscal conservatism?

Blast and trash the OP if you will, I am just following their lead.

Or are you saying the OPer is only trying to confuse and mislead?

[Two Americas]

17. I would agree with you

I would agree with you had the OP not said "the last 8 years." Those ruling over us for the last 8 years call themselves "conservatives." I am talking about the thing, not quibbling over the label. I think the OP is clearly talking about the people who have been ruling us and what they have done, not the label they apply to themselves and what that label "really" means. The thing is what matters, not the label for the thing.

This obsession over what are really no more than brand names in a context of sales and marketing no doubt reflects the transformation of the citizenry into commodities and consumers.

I would suggest that we start approaching politics as though we were free citizens engaged in the work of self-government, rather than as consumers selecting ideological merchandise off of the shelf from the available "choices" as informed by our "personal values." I would also suggest that we start seeing ourselves as producers rather than seeing our labor as a commodity to be sold on the "free market." That is the path out of the wilderness of tyranny we are now in and toward freedom and dignity and self determination.

[BeFree]

18. I like that

That we stop being classed in by economics or what we do for money is who we are.
Each of us needs to take ownership of what our government does, although taking ownership of the Iraqi war is quite distasteful, eh?

From now on, if we can all become the government, we may be able to end the bad ways and means of being screwed.

Too, and this just occured to me, those who are complaining about Obama's selections do seem to be taking an ownership stance.

[Two Americas]

19. that is so great

I was hoping we could reach an understanding. I very much appreciate you giving my posts such thoughtful consideration.

:toast:

[emulatorloo]

3. Fiscal conservatism = pay as you go. Bush = borrow money from China and SPEND SPEND SPEND

while giving your rich friends tax breaks.

[CrispyQ]

4. Trickle down = "Let's build our ecnonmy from the top down."

Who builds anything from the top down? :banghead:

[No Elephants]

6. According to the cons, 43 is a liberal. (Riiiight.) this is their schtick. If a con fails, he or

she is a liberal.

[L0oniX]

7. Death to the GOP!

[gulliver]

8. I hear you, but the last eight years have been gutter level crime.

The words "fiscal" and "conservative" and even "economy" don't belong in the discussion when talking about the Bush Administration and the generalized Republican power madness we have suffered under. The vocabulary needs to be more like "Og hit bad things with stick, make us hoot, grunt grunt."

America voted itself a lobotomy (the second time). Republicanism slipped every gear it ever had. It's just a dumb, dangerous, brain-dead hunk of garbage at this point. That's a shame, because many of it's deeper layers (manners, self reliance, respectability) are solid--and shared with Dems, I might add. But they channeled it all through a temper tantrum, stupid, dementia--picture Tom DeLay's face as illustration.

[niceypoo]

9. No, it isn't

What we saw the last eight years was kleptocratic neoliberalism. Fiscal conservatism involves balancing budgets and cutting spending. Clinton was fiscally conservative.

Supply side economics is not fiscally conservative, nor is it capitalism. It is cronyism and corporate socialism funded by credit, and it has failed all three times it has been tried. Reagan did supply side and doubled the national debt. Bush Sr did supply side and doubled it again. Bush jr implemented supply side yet again and doubled, or most likely tripled, the national debt.

http://www.globalexchange.org/campaigns/econ101/neoliberalDefined.html">Neoliberalism is privatization and outsourcing and it has destroyed Latin Americas economy. It is the republicans wet dream.

There is nothing 'conservative' about the GOP. They are radical reactionary statists.

[Two Americas]

11. good post Dawgs

The Democrats are in power because the people - finally! - have turned on and rejected Reagonomics. If we now betray that mandate, we will be damned by future observers, and we should be.

[opihimoimoi]

13. Trickle Down Extinction for the GOP..They have fucked themselves

with the BIG LIE

Its FUBAR

[iamahaingttta]

14. Fiscal Conservatism might be nice...

...if somebody would actually try it.
Too bad we'll never know, because we've had nothing but Republican "borrow and spend" CONservatives for the past 30 years.

So now it's back to "tax and spend" which at least we know works.