Quote:
Originally posted by SlaveNoMore
In the real world, Bush is a strong leader who is managing a war time budget, with necessary overruns. Knowing this, he and his cronies should however be killing other needless spending and pork. This, spending, no one other the side of the aisle seems to mind.
|
(1) There is no sign whatsoever that Bush is a "strong leader" in the sense that he is willing to make hard economic choices, like telling people something other than "you can have your cake and eat it too."
(2) Had Bush wanted to use 9/11 to force people to make these hard choices, doubtless he could have. He could have said, now that the country is at war, we're all going to have to make sacrifices, and that means cutting spending, among other things. However, to make this plausible, he would have had to scale back tax cuts. Instead, he leveraged the war (and the Dept. of Homeland Security thing) to get a GOP Senate, and then cut taxes ("our due," as Cheney put it) while increasing spending. This is the opposite of strong leadership.
Quote:
|
No Ty, apparently they have - since they are giving the people guns AND butter AND tax cuts*
|
You and I agree completely -- the GOP understands that people want inconsistent things, and have found a way to not only promise this to them, but to give it to them too. Our children will get to pay for this. Actually, those of us who are still working when the baby boomers retire will pay for it.
Quote:
|
Whereas the Dems would just give us butter and handouts and more ethanol.
|
As long as corn-growing states with small populations get the same number of senators apiece as California does, you can rest assured that the federal government -- no matter who presides over it -- will subsidize ethanol.
Meanwhile, complaining about hypothetical Democrat budget-busting is a weak strategy, since Clinton actually balanced the budget, and Bush is blowing it up.
