I wasn’t one of them. I bitched about Bush’s fiscal reasonability as much as I bitch about Obama’s, so please stop replying sarcastically to my post implying that I somehow wasn’t.

The only way Obama could end up a better president then Bush, is if he left office today. Bush is going to go down as one of the worst presidents we have ever had. In a hundred years (if the US is still around), Obama will be higher on that list.

thanks for repeating what I said. Anyway, i am sorry for using sarcasm in this site, so unusual. I am doing a search for all the threads you posted about Bush being a bad president while he was in office. it might be helpful if you can link me some threads. It's hard going through all these Obma post you got.

I wasn't under the impression that we would also be doing away with private health care.

Can I just say that nobody else in Britain speaks with this accent.

First of all, I can't remember the last time that conservatives had something good to say about a foreign official. That in itself is newsworthy.

I wouldn't have a problem with this if "fiscal conservatives" were man enough to raise taxes when times are good.

If you can't spend your way out of recession, then you also can't cut your way into profitability. Any good corporation knows that if you are in debt, you increase your revenue.

If "fiscal conservatives" had raised taxes while the economy was good so that we weren't running deficits during good economic years, then I would listen to what they have to say with a kinder ear. A true fiscal conservative is not scared to raise taxes.

Here's the problem, Akuma: Raising taxes during good times can cause reduced profitability for businesses and people to lead a country into worse times. We're seeing American jobs being outsourced as a result of more competitive corporate tax rates in other developed, and developing nations. Therefore, by raising taxes, you start to reduce the effect of a 'fat' period.

If anything, the government should learn to actually store back funds for use if times get bad, instead of hampering growth by raising taxes. If they are absolutely needed, I guess I can understand that. But if they are not needed, it won't work. When was the last time a politician raised taxes to pay something off, rather than raise taxes to fund new spending?

And I think your analogy of 'if you can't spend your way out of recession, then you can't cut your way to profitability' is beyond laughable. Have you ever ran a business? Know someone who does? Ask them if cutting back raises profitability. They'll tell you that it does. By your logic, the Big 3 auto manufacturers should be leading the world since they've never cut back a day in their life.

The fact is, that businesses trim the fat and reduce spending to increase profitability. Taxation & spending reduction is the same way. If the government wants to create a surplus, it needs to do what businesses do: lay people off. Close down unprofitable wings. Find more efficent ways to do business. The government, however, has that wonderful advantage of legislating revenue increases, since it can merely force it's populace to give them more revenue. That doesn't mean that it's a smart way of doing business. If anything, it's a horrible model to run a business, or government.

Here's an example of the correlation of corporate taxation, and the effect it has on our economy, and the economies of others:

Now, if you'll notice, outsourcing is increasing, while corporate taxation drops overseas. Guess why? If a business can hire people and pay them, and get taxed less, they have an incentive to do it.

Of course, I question if you'll understand this if you've ever run a business, or understand business economics.

Yeah, just look at GM and Chrysler.

ZING!

You can spend your way out of a recession. Or at least thats the current economic theory.

It seemed to work with the great depression, that only really ended once America started spending up big on WWII.

Did I ever say that shrinking the size of government wasn't an option?  You can reduce the size of your workforce all you want, but if you aren't bringing in enough money to sustain yourself, you are screwed either way.  You shrink government and raise taxes.  Using only one of those options makes no sense if you really care about being fiscally conservative.

What you said is all well and good.  But you can't call yourself a true fiscal conservative if you aren't willing to raise taxes to reduce the national debt.  A true fiscal conservative would use all options at his disposal to control the government debt.

If you are more concerned with economic growth than being fiscally conservative, that is fine.  But don't say that you are fiscally conservative.

These are the top 3 priorities of the party that calls itself fiscally conservative:

1) Cut taxes

2) Increase the strength of the military

3) Be fiscally responsible