Bush is getting desperate in his campaign.

[Drachasor]

Originally posted by Defiant
Here is another way to look at it, when I went to college my father paid and he couldn't write any off on taxes, now when my daughter is going I get college credits to write off, there is a substantial benefit that I directly see.

Oh yeah....and that really makes it seem like Bush was responsible for all of that.

-Drachasor

[Drachasor]

And I'd note that no one has defended the fact that Bush and his administration is a much, much bigger liar than Kerry and his people.

http://apolyton.net/forums/showthread.php?postid=3369448#post3369448

http://apolyton.net/forums/showthread.php?postid=3369523#post3369523

I guess the pro-Busher's think it will go away, just like the deficits will somehow magically disappear?

Heck, Bush hasn't even made any attempts to say how he will handle the deficit.

I remember a time when "Republican" implied Fiscal Responsibility.

-Drachasor

[Ned]

Drach, Bush has all along said that the deficit will disappear as the economy grows and Congress becomes fiscally conservative. The major reason for a deficit is the popping of the economic bubble that occurred in the final years of the Clinton admin. The runup in the stock market generated huge tax revenues. The decline in the stock market not only eliminated those revenues, but created loss carry-forwards that will depress taxes for years.

[Arrian]

Drach, Bush has all along said that the deficit will disappear as the economy grows and Congress becomes fiscally conservative.

Which is going to happen when? Oh, I forgot, some unspecified date in the future, during Bush's second term.

It's HIS PARTY that is spending recklessly in Congress! At his behest!

Further, I don't think the benifit of the tax cuts to the economy will outweigh the damage of more and more debt payments.

-Arrian

[Ned]

Originally posted by Arrian


Which is going to happen when? Oh, I forgot, some unspecified date in the future, during Bush's second term.

It's HIS PARTY that is spending recklessly in Congress! At his behest!

Further, I don't think the benifit of the tax cuts to the economy will outweigh the damage of more and more debt payments.

-Arrian

Arrian, you ignore context of the deficit spending, which was intended.

Now that we are out of the woods on the economy, the Republicans are going to be more conservative on their spending.

[Drachasor]

That must explain the 2 trillian dollar expense of partially privatising S.S. which is what Bush wants to do.

And that must explain the complete lack of a policy regarding the debt in Bush's list of policies:

http://www.whitehouse.gov/infocus/index.html

Yeah, he has a plan all right!

-Drachasor

[Arrian]

Originally posted by Ned


Arrian, you ignore context of the deficit spending, which was intended.

Now that we are out of the woods on the economy, the Republicans are going to be more conservative on their spending.

You cannot possibly believe that! There is absolutely no reason to think that they will now reign in spending.

Wow, you're a sucker.

-Arrian

[Ned]

Originally posted by Arrian




You cannot possibly believe that! There is absolutely no reason to think that they will now reign in spending.

Wow, you're a sucker.

-Arrian

Arrian, do you believe Kerry when he said he was in favor of balancing the budget during the height of the recession?

[Arrian]

Not really, no. But I believe that his fiscal policy will be better than Bush's. Why? Because it is difficult to imagine worse policy than Bush's. No other reason.

-Arrian

[Drachasor]

Originally posted by Arrian
Not really, no. But I believe that his fiscal policy will be better than Bush's. Why? Because it is difficult to imagine worse policy than Bush's. No other reason.

-Arrian

Hey, you have to give him credit for actually saying fiscal policy is an issue and the national debt is an issue.

Bush hasn't said anything about that for himself; he critisizes Kerry on spending when he plans to spend much, much more.

-Drachasor

[Arrian]

Sure. But like I said I don't actually put much stock in it. Most politicians promise the moon and don't deliver half of it, either because they never really intended two or they are unable to get Congress to agree.

I'm just hoping for a return to relative sanity. Then we can improve from there.

-Arrian

[Drachasor]

Well, I only meant acknowledging it as an issue is a step in the right direction.

-Drachasor

[Ned]

Originally posted by Oerdin


To my understanding a concervative's core beliefs are smaller government, lower taxes, and less regulation. In general they pro-free market and ideologically opposed to debt. There are exceptions but these are the conservative ideals.


Bush has 1) Created the largest new entitlement program ever with the drug benifit. 2) Not only put up new tarrifs on steal but also started a massive new farm subsidy program. 3) Created the single largest deficit of any country in the history of humanity and he did it while his party controlled Congress. 4) The federal budget and federal employment are substantially higher then when Bush took office.

That's just off the top of my head but does massive increases in the federal government sound like small government to you? Do massive new farm subisidies (most of which go to big businesses and not family farmers) and trade distorting tarrifs sound like a free market approach to you? Bush just doesn't seem to be to much of a conservative to me.

I guess that's why people call him a neo-Conservative but in my mind the neo-cons have only the bad side of the conservative but lack all of the good things conservatives bring (I.E. good governance).

I think the Republican Party's move to provide basic medical coverage for all Americans is a step in the right direction. I think it is hypocritical for anyone to criticize the small steps taken by Bush as being too large. They are not enough in my opinion and in the opinion of most Democrats. We need to do more. Thus the move to do something should be applauded as a move in the right direction.

Farm subsidies? I agree. But the Dems wanted more.

Steel tarriffs. I agree. But the Dems wanted more and did not want them removed when they were declared illegal. The tarriffs helped steelworkers, after all.

Deficit caused by spending?

The only thing the Dems complained about time and again was that we were spending to little. So getting rid of the Republicans in favor of Democrats does not help the overspending problem.

The large deficit was necessary to pull the economy out of a near depression. We had entered a period of deflation where monetary policy no longer worked.

It is now time to reduce the deficit. Bush has promised to do so.

[Ned]

Originally posted by Arrian
Not really, no. But I believe that his fiscal policy will be better than Bush's. Why? Because it is difficult to imagine worse policy than Bush's. No other reason.

-Arrian

I'm sorry for having to point this out repeatedly, but Kerry's policy was raising taxes and balancing the budget during a recession. That is insane.

[Ned]

Originally posted by Arrian
Sure. But like I said I don't actually put much stock in it. Most politicians promise the moon and don't deliver half of it, either because they never really intended two or they are unable to get Congress to agree.

I'm just hoping for a return to relative sanity. Then we can improve from there.

-Arrian

It is nice you recognize that Kerry's balanced-budget-during-a-recession fiscal policy was insane.