Quote:
Originally posted by Buff@Oct 18 2004, 05:09 PM
PD, fiscally Bush 43 is much more liberal than Clinton. Clinton at least passed NAFTA, a watered-down version of sort of free trade. Bush raised tariffs. Clinton raised taxes, true, but he also balanced the budget. Bush cut taxes a very very little bit, and allowed spending to skyrocket. Bush also added another government agency and a lot more government jobs. That's liberalism. I mean, he passed a liberal $400 billion in medical payoffs to buy seniors' votes. How can you say he's as conservative as Goldwater?
If it weren't for the fact that Bush talks about God, is against abortion, and went to war in Iraq, I don't think the liberals could find a single argument against him.
|
Bush shows absolutely no signs of fiscal responsibility - I'll agree if you put it that way.
But a liberal? Come on, Buff ... I don't know what wacked-out definition of liberalism you are using (inventing), but no way in hell.
The other government agency may end up creating new jobs - they usually do - but up to this point it's a paper shuffle more than anything else. Oh, I know you will want to whine about the security folks put on the government payroll - but considering that the private sector failed miserably in their efforts to provide security, it can't be a suprise that it happened.
I suspect that, as it was passed by Congress, the Medicare bill will benefit the health care industry far more than it will the seniors it was aimed at - 10+ billion to the pharmacutical companies alone (in the ban on the government negotiating discounts). And you know damned good and well it's not that he TALKS about God that bothers the left ... it's the fact that he thinks he is annointed by God to bring America into line with the way he thinks God wants us to act.