Yes, you. Again, why not? What *is * your idea of an “ideal fiscal conservative”, if balancing the budget isn’t part of it (or even all you can realistically expect)? And do you hold the parties to different standards when deciding who to vote for - one has to be “ideal” while the other does not? Sure looks that way.
What constitutes a strong military is a matter for debate. Republican administrations tend to strengthen the military by increasing quantity; Democrats tend to strengthen the military by increasing quality. Let’s say the air force has 5000 fighter planes and you’ve got to replace 1000 of them; you can build 1200 more of the same type of planes or 800 newer and better planes. Which solution is a better idea? Either one, depending on the specific details of each situation. But a Republican would claim that he’s trying to strengthen the air force by expanding it while the Democrat are weakening it by shrinking it - and the Democrat would claim that he’s trying to strengthen the air force by giving them better planes while the Republican is weakening them by making them use older planes that aren’t as good.
Oops, I have hijacked this thread haven’t I?
Okay, I do hold the parties to different criteria. Though not on fiscal matters.
I consider it a political crime that the Republican President and VP are effectively draft dodgers. I let democrats slide on the same issue, because it seems like the best thing for a Dem to say is “Hell yes, I was against the Vietnam War”.
I clearly said, I do not consider any President in my lifetime to have met the Fiscal conservative criteria, so I am not using a different standard there. I will freely say that Clinton was the most fiscally responsible of the Presidents from Carter to today. I am sorry that is not enough.
Little Nemo: Reagan built a huge Navy that required a lot of manpower and threw a lot of money into developing new and better weapon systems and especially defensive weapons. I consider him the ideal President for a Hawk. I do not like many of his domestic policies. I despised his environmental policies. But Reagan was the best friend the military has had since Teddy Roosevelt.
Reagan’s admin push many very good systems that were started under Carter or Nixon, he also seemed to throw money at almost any aspect of the military except for our pay. I felt the US was at a military low following Vietnam and Carter’s failed rescue of the hostages. Reagan made us the most powerful nation in the history of the world in less than 8 years. He nearly bankrupted us, but he did bankrupt the Soviet Union.
Jim
Reagan spent billions putting forty year old battleships back to sea. The money would have been a lot more effective if he’d given every member of the armed forces a 10% pay raise.
The issue of what effect Reagan’s military spending had on the collapse of the Soviet Union has been discussed many times on this board and it would be a hijack for me to reopen it. Suffice it to say that it’s hardly a proven fact that one caused the other.
Yes, of course, but the Battleships did make excellent flagships and with their missile refit made a good dual-purpose shore support unit with ridiculous armor. The old BBs showed the flag like few other ships could and were a moral boost to the Navy and had tremendous appeal to those in the Navy to serve on board. I would have had to Re-up for 4 years to get assigned to the New Jersey. I know, I checked at the time. I also mentioned that Reagan threw money at all military investments, some good and some foolish. I will not concede the BBs were foolish, they were great for morale and flag waving, this had a legitimate Foreign policy value. He did lay down the works for the new Nuke carriers that have largely replaced the conventional pigboats I served on from the fifties. He ordered most of the modern ships we have. Reagan’s Navy buildup was incredible and allowed us at its height to project our power anywhere in the world and to fight a 3 front war with a reserve. Check the weapons programs, he threw money at both overhauling the incredibly efficient B-52s and most of our modern stealth jets. He spent money on all aspects. He had money set aside for research into energy weapons and of course the half crazy Space Shield. The military morale was very low in 1980, by 1988 the morale was very high. We believed we the best in the world in every respect.
Air, Sea and Land.
Subs and Satellites.
We had the #1 Special Forces unit in the world in the SEALS.
We had the best pilots in the world and the second best.
We were prepared for almost every contingency and when asked to respond in Iraq under the first Bush, almost everything worked like clock work from the ancient BBs and B-52s to the very state of the art Smart Bombs, Stealth Fighters and FAE bombs. We cleared a path through the largest minefield ever seen by bombing it out of existence. Our tanks and trunks worked without problems. If anything had active radar, it was found and destroyed instantly. Did we need to be this strong and powerful, that is another debate, but we were that strong and powerful.
Of course it is not a proven fact that Ronny’s buildup finished of the USSR, but it is my opinion and strangely enough we were discussing the forming of my opinions.
Jim
(Referring to my statement that I’d changed my stance on gun control)
See the thread I’m about to start in IMHO.
Don’t want to hijack this one.
Republican
Fiscal conservative, social moderate
I was afflicted with a modicum of liberalism as a child, Thorazine cured me.
There wasn’t an actual surplus. The government was still spending more money than it was taking in, and the debt was still increasing. It’s just that a lot of the debt was “off budget” debt, like Social Security, and more of it was projected surplus.
…Hopefully!!
But on a serious note, Dem or Rep mean little to me…personal idiology is much more relivanet.
have fun, live long…and prosper.
tsfr
Do you actually mean BushCo is a choice for you?
:::shudders:::
To the extent that “Clinton Democrat” means “someone who didn’t like Clinton and rarely votes Democrat,” sure. Seems like it might confuse people, though.