And where would you place Treasury Secretary Paulson who spearheaded Bush's $700 Billion dollar TARP proposal? - - - You know, the one that has invested $150 Billion of taxpayer money in AIG? Is Paulson and Bush in the socialist camp? Just curious.
MEASTRO, There is clearly two differing camps with ideas how to fix the economy. People in the first camp believe in lowering taxes and letting the system fix itself. But what are these companies going to produce when there's no demand? No demand = no earnings = lay offs. Deadly spiral. The second camp believes that we should spend public money on infrustructure (that is by the way pretty beaten down and needs upgrades ) and thus we combat the job losses from the private sector and thus giving more money into the system which should in the end create more demand (consumer driven recovery). I think a middle road is neccessary to come out on top in this crisis. We need both lower corporate taxes and infrustructure projects. Paul
And what do you call a guy that spent > 500 days on vacation at Camp David, Kennebunkport, Maine, and the Crawford Ranch in Texas? Certainly not a LEADER. Anything but.
It's socialism when the other party does it.....The so called conservatives have no idea what the hell they are talking about. They blame Democrats for creating deficits but still think that we had surpluses during Reagan, Bush Sr. and Dumbya. Here's Republiclowns talking points Bush failed because of Clinton, Clinton did good because of Reagan. If Obama does good it will be because of Reagan and Bush, if he does bad then he is just another liberal. Had McCain won the presidency and the economy had rebounded just on it's own, it would have been because of the $600 rebate check by Bush and if the economy had done bad it would have been due to Clinton.
* However, St Ronnie's good works mysteriously skipped over Bush the Smarter's term. Then rematerialized and made everything good in the 90s. Its like the Magic Bullet theory with economics.
Here's what I don't get... after 200 years (probably less but I'm not a political history expert) why are we still limited to a 2 party system? I understand that its better than other governments that have dozens of parties, with a new one getting elected every few terms, thus making it difficult to maintain consistency... but for moderates in this country, it seems a little ridiculous to constantly have to choose between whether or not economic or social issues are important "this time around." It does seem like its time to at least have another legitimate and competitive alternative out there for those people who are fiscally conservative but socially liberal. And maybe even a 4th party for those who are fiscally liberal but socially conservative. But for the life of me, I can't figure out why every election, every voter that isn't either fiscally and socially conservative OR fiscally and socially liberal has to decide which values they're going to compromise based on the the hot topic issue that just happens to be in the news that year.