Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Buccaneer
One of the greatest statement of revisionist history I have heard recently. His budgets and spending proposals increases about the same percentage as now but just happened to be president when the internet revolution and agressive interest rate reductions took place. Plus he was too self-aborbed to have stuck his neck out and fight a war on terrorism.
To all of those tired of tax cuts and spending increases, don't be stupid enough to vote for a Democratic candidate. Join me in voting Libertarian this year.
Peregrine: Do you think that any threat of a veto or any proposed reductions in spendings would not have caused enormous outrage among Democratic leaders and the media?????
I will challenge anyone to present an example of any Democratic leader saying that too much money is being proposed for any non-military spending programs. That is all we hear (and have heard for a long time) is most Congressperson (either party) wanting more and more and more and more (just some wants more of X instead of Y). Any hint of so-called fiscal responsibility brings out cries of hurting the children, killing the elderly, etc.
You can't have it both ways.
|
Two things: One is while Clinton spent he also did it when he could. You can't criticize the guy for spending in times of a surplus. Thus, although he spent, he did not run up deficits (I call that fiscal conservatism). Plus, you can't give the guy no credit for the economic times and pass it off as fluke. Did he have some luck -- for sure. But if the country's economic stability and growth has NOTHING to do with the President, then whey do we talk about it at election time?
Second, my point is more the fact that Bush has erased what was a big advantage for the Republicans at election time -- pointing to the Democrats as fiscally irresponsible and big spenders.