Quote:
Originally posted by Secret_Agent_Man
Maybe not. I'm sure that Kerry's choice of alternate funding was politically motivated. In any event, that neither makes him a "flip-flopper" nor one who doesn't support the troops or the war effort.
|
I think not as well. If you read what Kerry was saying from 1996 to the Dean uprising, he was very hawkish on Iraq. This was completely politically driven, to give him cover with his base, seemingly without regard to the effect on the troops.
Quote:
Now my turn:
Answer me this: If GWB's core support was not based in large part upon people for whom _the_ defining political issue is how much money the government takes from them in taxes, would he have insisted on maintaining his tax cuts (and pressing to make them permanent) through Hell or High Water, i.e. from the evaporation of the projected "$1 trillion surplus", through the economic downturn, through funding two wars and two (inadequately funded) occupations/reconstructions, leading to the largest budget deficits in our history and projected trillions of dollars added to the national debt?
Or, does he just believe taxes are evil because the Bible tells him so?
S_A_M
|
I think taxes are a proxy for what should be a legitimate debate on the proper roll and size of the government, and I appreciate that you did not use the "tax cuts for the rich" line because I think that cheapens what is a very important question for our democracy to answer. I would like to say that Bush really believes that the government is too large and that is the reason for the cuts, but it's hard to make that argument given his spending habits. So, you may be right, it may be primarily politically driven.
