Here is a good article on whether or not Bush was a socialist.
http:www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/article570387.ece
Here is some of the article.
"A few years back, your correspondent noticed something a little odd about George W Bush's conservatism. If you take Margaret Thatcher's dictum that a socialist is someone who is very good at spending someone elses money then President Bush is, er, a socilist."
Of course the expenses were the war, homeland security, efforts to avert deflation (LOL), war on terror, education, Katrina, an increase in agricultural subsides, and explosion in pork barrel spending, and the biggest new entitlement since LBJ which was the medicare drug benefit.
The author writes, "I used to write sentences that began with the phrase: 'Not since LBJ's Great Society spending binge....I can't write that any more. Johnson-the guns and butter president of liberalisms high-water mark-was actually more fiscally conservative than Bush. LBJ boosted domestic spending by a mere 33.4%. In 5 years, Bush increased it by 35.1%. And thats before the costs for Katrina and Rita and the Medicare benefit to kick in. Worse, this comes at a time then everyone concedes that we are facing a fiscal crunch before Bush started handing out dollar bills like a drunk at a strip club. With this looming retirement of America's baby-boomers, the US needed to start saving, not spending, cutting, not expanding its spending habits."
Of course, the sad thing is that this was written in 2005. I can only imagine what his reaction would have been to the bail outs and government takeover of the auto makers. Under Bush, in 5 years he added $1.5 trillion to the national debt. The interest on the debt soon added up to the cost of 2 Katrinas a year. We saw the largest spending increase under any preceeding President and Congress since the Great Depression. When you have doubled spending on education in 4 years, launched 2 wars, and a mega-entitlement, that tends to happen.
So the question begs, was "W" a socialist, or at least, in a fiscal way? Also, if these spending habits got us into the current mess we are in now, why then are we increasing this spending? Its like having Bush on steroids in the Oval Office as opposed to change. Does anyone really agree with either of Bush's or Obamas spending habits?
The hell of it is all this spending was approved by a Republican Congress. My only solice is that they got their just desert in 2008. Now if we can just do the same in 2010/2012 to their democrat counterparts. Of course, who then do we turn to?
Originally posted by whodeyWe don't mention her name around these parts.
Here is a good article on whether or not Bush was a socialist.
http:www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/article570387.ece
Here is some of the article.
"A few years back, your correspondent noticed something a little odd about George W Bush's conservatism. If you take Margaret Thatcher's dictum that a socialist is someone who is very good at spending some ...[text shortened]... change. Does anyone really agree with either of Bush's or Obamas spending habits?
And her definition of socialism is as absurd as her theories on public transport, i.e.: "If you're older than 26 and still take the bus... you are a loser."
Seriously.
Forget her. She died out with the dinosaurs, Ayn Rand and the environment.
"A few years back, your correspondent noticed something a little odd about George W Bush's conservatism. If you take Margaret Thatcher's dictum that a socialist is someone who is very good at spending someone elses money then President Bush is, er, a socialist."I was always under the impression that socialism was about a) the redistribution of wealth from the rich to the poor, and b) state ownership of industry.
So when did Bush raise taxes for the rich? And what industry did he nationalise (bailouts don't count, by the way)? And if Bush was a socialist, how did income inequality grow on his watch?
Originally posted by shavixmirWhen archeologists opened the grave, they found Milton Friedman as well.
We don't mention her name around these parts.
And her definition of socialism is as absurd as her theories on public transport, i.e.: "If you're older than 26 and still take the bus... you are a loser."
Seriously.
Forget her. She died out with the dinosaurs, Ayn Rand and the environment.
Anyways, this is classic if-by-whiskey reasoning.
Originally posted by TeinosukeOf course, raising taxes and nationalizing industry is problematic in a capitalistic society. In short, it would be virtually impossible.....that is unless you were in a time of "crisis". Additionally, spending your money is just like raising your taxes, only, you can defer payments with the illusion that you are not really paying for it. Unfortunately it simply worsens the tax burden later on. I would say that both "W" and Obama are making "baby steps" towards socialism. With the stimulus money already spent we are well on our way! Now all that is needed is perhaps another stimulus and more entitlements with cap and trade included. Of course, both play the game of "I won't raise your taxes" while doing all this spending. In terms of taxes, from what I hear cap and trade will be the mother load of tax burden on the US eventually with the added bonus of not being a direct tax on the populace come election time. Of course, they will implement it in "baby steps". It is necessary in order for the population to learn socialism.
I was always under the impression that socialism was about a) the redistribution of wealth from the rich to the poor, and b) state ownership of industry.
So when did Bush raise taxes for the rich? And what industry did he nationalise (bailouts don't count, by the way)? And if Bush was a socialist, how did income inequality grow on his watch?
Watching Obama makes me wonder if "W" dyed his skin and put on an afro and then began taking steroids to boot!! We must recognize the failures of the Bush adminstration if we are not to repeat them. Unfortunately, Obama simply ran against him rather than change his policies.
Originally posted by whodeyBROKEN RECORD ALERT
Of course, raising taxes and nationalizing industry is problematic in a capitalistic society. In short, it would be virtually impossible.....that is unless you were in a time of "crisis". Additionally, spending your money is just like raising your taxes, only, you can defer payments with the illusion that you are not really paying for it. Unfortunately it ...[text shortened]... them. Unfortunately, Obama simply ran against him rather than change his policies.
Originally posted by whodeyWhat? There are plenty of capitalistic societies with nationalized industries and high taxes. Classic examples of lower quality at a higher price compared to nationalized industries are US health care and the UK railways.
Of course, raising taxes and nationalizing industry is problematic in a capitalistic society. In short, it would be virtually impossible...
Originally posted by no1marauderIts going to be a looooong 4 years, eh marauder? I would just love to hear what you think about both "W"'s spend thrift ways as well as Obama's. Of course, you will probably say that "W"'s was a choice as where Obama's was a necessity, or something along those lines. I just hope you agree that spending at such levels is detrimental to the economy.
BROKEN RECORD ALERT
Originally posted by KazetNagorraCapitalistic societies taking baby steps toward socialism
What? There are plenty of capitalistic societies with nationalized industries and high taxes. Classic examples of lower quality at a higher price compared to nationalized industries are US health care and the UK railways.
Originally posted by whodeyBut I think you're missing the point. Socialism is not defined just by the existence of high taxes; it depends on how the taxes are used. Socialism is about redistribution, so taxation has to be progressive in order to qualify as socialist: it has to be designed specifically to redistribute wealth from the rich to the poor. Whereas Bush increased government spending in order to wage a costly war abroad.
Of course, raising taxes and nationalizing industry is problematic in a capitalistic society...Additionally, spending your money is just like raising your taxes, only, you can defer payments with the illusion that you are not really paying for it. Unfortunately it simply worsens the tax burden later on. I would say that both "W" and Obama are making "baby steps" towards socialism.
I agree that borrowing money to spend it on government projects is not exactly a fiscally conservative position, but it isn't necessarily socialist either. Again, it depends on what projects are being paid for, and to what purpose.
Originally posted by whodeyI don't know how many times I have to point this out to you, but I didn't vote for Obama. I'm not the partisan shill you are - I don't recall you making a single post before last autumn complaining about Bush's "spendthrift ways".
Its going to be a looooong 4 years, eh marauder? I would just love to hear what you think about both "W"'s spend thrift ways as well as Obama's. Of course, you will probably say that "W"'s was a choice as where Obama's was a necessity, or something along those lines. I just hope you agree that spending at such levels is detrimental to the economy.
Bush and the Republicans coupled massive increases in spending for war and other useless endeavors with gigantic tax cuts for the wealthy. This was after Bush inherited a reasonably healthy economy. Coupled with that Republican administration looking the other way while banks and other financial institutions created $63 trillion face value "mortgage backed securities" that were essentially worthless, his policies managed to turn a cyclical correction into the worst economic crisis since the Great Depression.
Obama was given little choice but to increase spending to stimulate the economy, though he did raise taxes on the wealthy. Every single time he suggests ways to raise revenue, you scream, cry and stamp your feet about what a terrible idea that is during a recession! This idiotic nonsense gets repeated in every single thread you start to whine about Obama's economic policies. It's tiresome and moronic.
Personally, I'd end the wars pronto and slash military spending at least in half; that would leave plenty of money available to reduce the deficit, create a universal health care system and stimulate the economy. I'd raise taxes on the wealthy to the pre-Reagan levels at a minimum. So much for the deficit.
Whine about those proposals, shill.
Originally posted by no1marauderHow about cutting military spending for military operations in the middle east. Or just plain pull out of there. Stimulate our manufacturing corporations by having them build cruise missles for 10-20 thousand dollars apiece instead of a million dollars. The money being spent anyway, would be used as stimulation. Yes Bush is a socialist.
I don't know how many times I have to point this out to you, but I didn't vote for Obama. I'm not the partisan shill you are - I don't recall you making a single post before last autumn complaining about Bush's "spendthrift ways".
Bush and the Republicans coupled massive increases in spending for war and other useless endeavors with giganti ...[text shortened]... nimum. So much for the deficit.
Whine about those proposals, shill.
Originally posted by joe beyserBollocks.
How about cutting military spending for military operations in the middle east. Or just plain pull out of there. Stimulate our manufacturing corporations by having them build cruise missles for 10-20 thousand dollars apiece instead of a million dollars. The money being spent anyway, would be used as stimulation. Yes Bush is a socialist.
Utter bollocks.
If Bush was a communist... he wouldn't be a creationist.
If Bush was a communist... he wouldn't have attacked Iraq or Afghanistan
If Bush was a communist... he would not have created Gotanamo bay (or however the hell it's spelled).
If Bush was a communist, he'd have delivered power to the workers, nationalised health care, water, electricity and oil and he would have learned how to pronounce nuclear.
Originally posted by shavixmirYet if Bush was a socialist, he would use all those things to incrementally set up a world wide socialist goverment.
Bollocks.
Utter bollocks.
If Bush was a communist... he wouldn't be a creationist.
If Bush was a communist... he wouldn't have attacked Iraq or Afghanistan
If Bush was a communist... he would not have created Gotanamo bay (or however the hell it's spelled).
If Bush was a communist, he'd have delivered power to the workers, nationalised health care, water, electricity and oil and he would have learned how to pronounce nuclear.