Unable to detect sarcasm, I see. It's not us Libertarians/Objectivists who want bigger government- it's you neo-cons. Don't you see that cutting taxes is absolutely pointless if government spending is to keep balooning? Where do you think the money comes from for all of Bush's big new government projects? Technically Bush did cut taxes, but practically he's raised them...just a delayed effect. Oh...and I wouldn't vote for Dean either. He's just a turd of a different shape.
I'm not happy about the size of government either under Bush but I think he'll do some housecleaning 2nd term. Most of the increased size comes from the homeland security dept. Bush nor anyone else back in 2000 planned on this but the times have changed. Hopefully we can make this dept smaller and more efficient. I think we could also do away with the IRS. As for the money, I think Bush and his administration is counting on the economy to pay down the debt. I think we will get a nice pop in capital gains this year. Everyone I know made a killing in the market this year from an investing standpoint and they are going to have to pay some pretty hefty taxes on that. Economy is picking up nicely. Remember, the only reason, and I mean the only Reason Clinton balanced the budget was from the capital gains taxes from the bull market of the 90's. There is no reason why that won't happen again.
I'm not predicting that Dean wins or that he will propose a flat tax. I think both are very unlikely. What I do see is the following: Conservatives are not happy with Bush. The economic conservatives are wary of the increased spending, and Bush's failure to push for more dramatic tax cuts, eg eliminating cap gains. The cultural conservatives see an administration that has done nothing as the Ten Commandments are ripped off courthouses all over the country, that seems comfortable with affirmative action, that doesn't want to offend gays, that calls Islam the "religion of peace" and seems content to pander to hispanics and ignore illegal immigration. Neither group will vote for Dean in menaingful numbers, no matter what he proposes. What they can very well do is stay home and sit out the election. That would not only cost Bush enough votes to lose, but would also be devastating for congressional races. Part of their decision to sit it out will be based on Bush, but a large part is in Dean's control. if he appears to be a typical liberal airhead, the fear factor will drive conservatives to the polls. If he is somehow able to appear to be credible and even more desirable than Bush in some ways, eg flat tax, then he becomes a very real threat. And I think Elliot spitzer would be impressive as a VP candidate. He would call huge attention to the administration's lax response to Wall Street and corporate corruption.
I think turnout at this election will be very high. Plus I think you will see a very heavy push from behind closed doors by the Clintons to make sure Dean loses. If Dean wins, the Clinton's as we know them will be finished for good. There is no way that will happen. Remember in 1992 Jerry Brown ran on a flat tax and got destroyed by the left. Nobody on the left wanted to have any part of that. The problem with the democratic party is they are making a conscience decision to go further and further to the left. I said this before and I will say it again, the party died with Jack Kennedy. He was the last true pro growth democrat that believed in tax cuts and growing business. Zell Miller, Prominent democrat from Georgia seems to agree with this idea. Democrats are moving much closer to the socialist side of things and they are moving away from being a centrist party. Republicans might be angry at Bush over a lot of things but their loyalty to him has never been higher. Bush is in the process of shattering every fundraising record there is. Most people on the right will not vote even for a centrist democrat on fiscal policy because vast majority of them are pro-life. Now the independents, thats another story. The problem I have heard from a lot of independent people is they don't like angry leaders and Dean comes across as a very angry and hateful person. Even democrats are turned off by that. It just doesn't win elections. There is a reason why you always see candidates shaking hands and kissing babies and smiling all the time. Anger loses elections. Look at what anger did to John McCain. He was portrayed as this angry man with a bad temper and people just didn't warm up to that and he was a war hero for christ sake.
I agree with most of your post AAA. However read the Spitzer thread here. He's a duplicitous prick. He's clearly trying to take the Guilianni path to bigger and better things but he lacks Rudy's professional integrity. http://www.elitetrader.com/vb/showt...5986&perpage=6&highlight=spitzer&pagenumber=3 Also as Maverick rightfully points out, the Democrats will never be the answer for those fiscally responsible. Bush and the GOP congress are taking the heat for the record deficits, but Libs in Congress were pissed that the '04 budget didn't spend more! Clinton's surpluses were not a product of Willie's frugal impulses but of the Gingrich GOP holding his feet to the fire and of those winning the lottery capital gains tax revenues from the bubble. Pat Buchanan should have be President!
I almost agree with this. The Republicans are spending so fast it is a disgrace! What we need more than a tax cut is some fiscal responsibility and a balanced budget from Bush. Rather than the interest in the crackdown on illegal drugs, what has me concerned is the doctorization of over the counter vitamins that the House has passed and the Senate has not (yet). It would be very bad to have to get a prescription to buy vitamins - why do we need a doctor (who knows nothing about nutrition) to take a middleman cut when the current system is working just fine? /rant
Yes but as a fiscal conservative, to me this is still no excuse for the dramatic upswing in spending. Clinton was never one to not grab credit where none was due. The shutdowns in the government didn't hurt either. I can't stand him on MSNBC let alone in the oval office. Buchannan gives Republicans a bad name.
Pat Buchanan is a good example of how the big media will attempt to delegitimize a conservative, particularly a cultural conservative. He asked a lot of hard questions that no one had answers for, so he was dismissed as "angry", "hateful", even "nativist", which apparently was used to mean someone who wondered why the immigration laws were being ignored. Oh yeah, he was "homophobic" and of course "racist." He offended people by giving a speech that praised the police and troops who put down the Rodney King riots. I don't particularly think he would have been a good president, but contrast the free pass the media is giving Dean with the abuse Pat took.
also an illustration of the differences between a textbook "conservative" and the pseudo-leftist neocons -- Buchanan has been very critical of the administration, particularly on Iraq, immigration, and trade.