Well, I take issue with a few things along the lines of this argument.(Defecit spending)
Thanks Lizzie. Since I made my post, I read yours and quite a few other good posts making a case against George's defecit spending. By the way, I think the defecit spending during the Reagan years was a combination of the Democratic controlled congress and Reagan. And timing of when you are in office has a lot to do with the question of defecit or surplus. Reagan was originally famous in California for reducing Jerry Brown's Califoria government debt and turning this in to a surplus. But his record in Washington, combined with a Democratic controlled Congress in Washington, was not the same. Even so, many would argue that Reagan's defense spending, which contributed to these defecits, overwhelmed the Russians and ended the cold war---yielding a significant savings to us in the long run. With regard to Clinton, the Clinton and Republican controlled Congress surplus was benefited by an unsustainable, bubble economy that was already beginning to crumble before Clinton left office.
Finally, regarding pork, all these politicians, regardless of party, are for sale to some extent imo, and will support pork to some extent if it brings them votes or more power. Nevertheless, it appears to me that Bush's Iraq war will continue to go way over budget and is costing much more than it would have had we attained more international cooperation. I voted for Bush last time, but this time I am hoping the Demos will put up a candidate with significant, national and international experience like Liebermann, Kerry or Gephardt. Along the same lines, I think Dole would have been better than Bush last time. The voters don't seem to give much weight to national and international experience, although some Presidents from local backgrounds have shown an ability to "grow" in to their new broader role once elected.
JMHO, Huey |
