The Collapse of the Never-Trump Conservatives

[Free Vulcan]

Yes, I do understand that the Republican House and Senate passed the bill and that the "great deal-maker" signed it.  What I don't understand is how so many supposed "fiscal conservatives", who railed against Barack Obama about deficit spending, can be RELATIVELY quiet about the trillions being adding to the national debt by "their guy".   I really thought most "fiscal conservatives" had more principles than that.  I was obviously wrong.

Conversely, he's also held ground and advanced the ball on other issues. While your gripe and fiscal responsibility is accurate, you are not going to selectively limit the debate to that nasty spot on the table while forgetting the rest, and be considered intellectually honest.

[Frank Cannon]

Just went back 38 years and couldn't find a President that didn't deficit spend.....

Here are the ratios of deficit to GDP for the past five presidents:

Ronald Reagan

1981-88 4.2 %

1982-89 4.2

Average 4.2

George H. W. Bush

1989-92 4.0

1990-93 4.3

Average 4.2

Bill Clinton

1993-2000 0.8

1994-2001 0.1

Average 0.5

George W. Bush

2001-08 2.0

2002-09 3.4

Average 2.7

Barack Obama

2009-12* 9.1

2010-12 8.7

Average 8.9

*fiscal 2012 ends Sept. 30, 2012, so this figure is estimated

Source: Economic Report of the President, February 2012

https://www.forbes.com/sites/jamesglassman/2012/07/11/the-facts-about-budget-deficits-how-the-presidents-truly-rank/#71c2c7d7600b

[Weird Tolkienish Figure]

In fairness Trump has made more efforts towards this than Bush.

Bush... now there is a "conservative" i have no respect for.

[INVAR]

Since you have to go back Calvin Coolidge to find a President that genuinely cut the size of government and spending (50%) your argument is silly because it's a fairy tale.

So let's applaud deficit spending to the tune of Trillions because we now have a default precedent to keep spending us into oblivion?

At some point the consequences for breaking the law of economics is going to come crashing down on all our heads and we can comfort ourselves with the fact that no presidents or congresses since Coolidge cut spending.

[Concerned]

Conversely, he's also held ground and advanced the ball on other issues. While your gripe and fiscal responsibility is accurate, you are not going to selectively limit the debate to that nasty spot on the table while forgetting the rest, and be considered intellectually honest.

"Selectively limit the debate"?  What in the word did I say that would lead you to imply I might be looking to do that (if YOU are being "intellectually honest")?  As I mentioned below, I understand that those with different priorities than me have very good reasons for their support of Donald J. Trump.  I absolutely get that and thought I had made that clear, but if your priorities are fiscal conservatism (as mine are -- but I recognize not everyone's is) than I'm disappointed and frustrated.  I'm not trying to "selectively limit the debate" in any way, but I did think that there were more folks out there who were genuinely fiscal conservatives.  I was apparently wrong (as I also said previously).

I agree that you probably can’t get 100% of what you want.  If so, then it comes down to priorities IMO.  Look, if a war on political correctness or cultural issues is your #1 priority, I understand why Donald Trump is your guy.  If being pro-life is your #1 priority, I understand why Donald Trump is your guy, but for those of us for whom fiscal conservatism is our #1 priority, we’re not happy with Trump’s reckless spending.  For some reason, many Trump supporters don’t seem to be capable of understanding that.  I don’t understand that.  JMO.

[andy58-in-nh]

Well, this thread should go well.

I'm not sure why some folks feel compelled to dance on the graves of those they feel have been proven wrong.  Isn't it more effective -- not to mention more gracious -- to simply jointly celebrate good news, rather than engaged in a bunch of "nyah nyah, I told you so's?"

Well, I tried to do my part...

[Weird Tolkienish Figure]

So let's applaud deficit spending to the tune of Trillions because we now have a default precedent to keep spending us into oblivion?

At some point the consequences for breaking the law of economics is going to come crashing down on all our heads and we can comfort ourselves with the fact that no presidents or congresses since Coolidge cut spending.

Welp...

I think the laws of economics are just a tad different for nation states than they are for individuals, since nation states can print their own currency. Not that they are without consequence necessarily, just that they are... different.

[Sanguine]

You realize that the generally Trump hostile House and Senate passed that bill, correct?

And I did not support Trump signing that bill. In fact that that has been his biggest ding against him.

He never should have signed that bill.

[skeeter]

I agree that you probably can’t get 100% of what you want.  If so, then it comes down to priorities IMO.  Look, if a war on political correctness or cultural issues is your #1 priority, I understand why Donald Trump is your guy.  If being pro-life is your #1 priority, I understand why Donald Trump is your guy, but for those of us for whom fiscal conservatism is our #1 priority, we’re not happy with Trump’s reckless spending.  For some reason, many Trump supporters don’t seem to be capable of understanding that.  I don’t understand that.  JMO.

Fair enough. Personally my no. 1 issue is immigration reform, simply because unlike all other issues once the problem careens past a certain point there is no going back. So I appreciate Trump for how he's been able to change the context for debate.

But no I'm not happy with the budget either.

[Free Vulcan]

"Selectively limit the debate"?  What in the word did I say that would lead you to imply I might be looking to do that (if YOU are being "intellectually honest")?  As I mentioned below, I understand that those with different priorities than me have very good reasons for their support of Donald J. Trump.  I absolutely get that and thought I had made that clear, but if your priorities are fiscal conservatism (as mine are -- but I recognize not everyone's is) than I'm disappointed and frustrated.  I'm not trying to "selectively limit the debate" in any way, but I did think that there were more folks out there who were genuinely fiscal conservatives.  I was apparently wrong (as I also said previously).

Then be disappointed, but don't try to leverage it into being the balance his whole presidency is judged on. Liberals aren't fighting a one-front war, my judgement of the Prez is over that entire theater of operations.

[Free Vulcan]

He never should have signed that bill.

No, he should have told them to go to hell. That is my one major ding against him.

[Sanguine]

No, he should have told them to go to hell. That is my one major ding against him.

OK, I can agree with that.

[Frank Cannon]

So let's applaud deficit spending to the tune of Trillions because we now have a default precedent to keep spending us into oblivion?

At some point the consequences for breaking the law of economics is going to come crashing down on all our heads and we can comfort ourselves with the fact that no presidents or congresses since Coolidge cut spending.

What does it matter if you deficit spend $5 or $500 if you are a "principled Conservative"? Oh yeah. It matters if you are trying to target one single President with high minded bullshit that hasn't existed in 100 years.

[Sanguine]

What does it matter if you deficit spend $5 or $500 if you are a "principled Conservative"? Oh yeah. It matters if you are trying to target one single President with high minded bullshit that hasn't existed in 100 years.

It makes a big difference if you have a good chance of being able to pay back $5 and absolutely no chance whatsoever of ever paying back $500.

And, Trump ran on cutting the deficit.  Just because some other feckless presidents and congresses have run up the tab doesn't mean he should almost immediately jump aboard the wild spending train.

[Concerned]

Then be disappointed, but don't try to leverage it into being the balance his whole presidency is judged on. Liberals aren't fighting a one-front war, my judgement of the Prez is over that entire theater of operations.

Look, I've praised the President on any number of issues (e.g., the economy, judges, ISIS, his attack in Syria, etc.), but if the President of the United States has apparently completely abandoned YOUR number one priority -- be it, abortion, immigration, political correctness, culture wars, or fiscal responsibility, I can't think of a better issue for ANYONE to judge the balance of his presidency than on THEIR number one priority issue.  Having said that, I wouldn't dictate how anyone should evaluate a President's performance.  I think that's an individual choice using individual criteria. 

[Free Vulcan]

Having said that, I wouldn't dictate how anyone should evaluate a President's performance.  I think that's an individual choice using individual criteria.

Fair enough.

[Weird Tolkienish Figure]

It makes a big difference if you have a good chance of being able to pay back $5 and absolutely no chance whatsoever of ever paying back $500.

Yeah but the US government just prints it's own currency, so the comparison to you or me isn't really valuable. And nearly every other nation on earth does the same thing, most as bad if not worse than the US. China and Japan hold a lot of US debt, have you ever seen their own balance sheets? Scary shit I believe.

Of course, it would benefit the average citizen in the US to reign in spending. Trump would do well to convince the culture at large of that.

[Frank Cannon]

It makes a big difference if you have a good chance of being able to pay back $5 and absolutely no chance whatsoever of ever paying back $500.

And, Trump ran on cutting the deficit.  Just because some other feckless presidents and congresses have run up the tab doesn't mean he should almost immediately jump aboard the wild spending train.

The economy is growing faster than expectations. Trump could easily pull a Reagan and grow the economy enough to offset spending.

[cato potatoe]

The past two years eroded the influence of warmongers in the GOP, but also pushed classical liberalism to the brink of extinction.  "Conservatives" now believe the government is the solution to their problems.  Not always in form, but most definitely in substance.  So now it boils down to a fight over which tribe gets to plunder our remaining credit.

[Sanguine]

The past two years eroded the influence of warmongers in the GOP, but also pushed classical liberalism to the brink of extinction.  "Conservatives" now believe the government is the solution to their problems.  Not always in form, but most definitely in substance.  So now it boils down to a fight over which tribe gets to plunder our remaining credit.

Great post!

[RoosGirl]

Two paragraphs in and the author seems to be celebrating the death of Charles Krauthammer.  Nice.  Maybe the same points could have been made without doing that.

[TomSea]

Trump campaigned on improving the infrastructure, his trillion dollar plan. This was not hidden from the voters and something that Sean Hannity disagrees with also.... but otherwise, if one agrees with Trump on most of the issues but not this one in particular, you might have still voted for him. We all knew, this is what he planned to do.

[endicom]

Can you show me where there has been free trade? It's a unicorn that doesn't exist.

You're right. NAFTA, for instance, is managed trade.

[TomSea]

Emerald Robinson is the chief White House correspondent for One America News Network.

So, ultimately, this editorial comes from One America News Network, OANN....

[Frank Cannon]

Two paragraphs in and the author seems to be celebrating the death of Charles Krauthammer.  Nice.  Maybe the same points could have been made without doing that.

Yeah, but she is hot......so your point is moot.....