HOW CONSERVATIVE IS PRESIDENT BUSH?

The Cato Institute ^ | August 3, 2002 | By Veronique de Rugy

[Texasforever]

The 11th commandment initially applied to Republican primaries, and how we should not bad-mouth each other.

Nice try but no cigar. Try harder.

[Jesse]

At least he won't bail out some 3rd world South American country so the big banks don't lose money.

Uh-oh. You were saying? See below.

On a conservative scale of 1-10 with Bill Clinton being a 2, Ronald Reagan an 8, and Ron Paul a 10, Bush is a 3.5.

U.S. to Give $1.5B Loan to Uruguay
Sun Aug 4, 1:27 PM ET
By MARTIN CRUTSINGER, AP Economics Writer

WASHINGTON (AP) - The Bush administration will provide an emergency $1.5 billion loan to Uruguay to help the country deal with an economic crisis that forced its banks to close last week, officials said Sunday.

The U.S assistance will come in the form of a loan to be repaid in a matter of days once the South American nation receives a new loan package from the International Monetary Fund ( news - web sites), said the officials, speaking on condition of anonymity.

It will be the first time the administration has agreed to provide direct support to a country in economic trouble.

The immediate support was judged critical to ease what has become an escalating financial crisis in South America. It began in Argentina in December and since has spread to Uruguay and Brazil, the region's largest economy.

Treasury Secretary Paul O'Neill left Sunday for Brazil, and later will visit Uruguay and Argentina.

The administration took office pledging to oppose the type of direct financial assistance and big bailouts the Clinton administration used during the 1997-98 Asian currency crisis. But the deepening economic woes in Latin America have forced the Bush administration to reconsider that stance.

A $1.5 billion loan for Uruguay was seen as essential to allow the country to reopen its banks Monday. They shut down last Tuesday as authorities sought to deal with a run on deposits. The closings sparked violent street protests.

Uruguay's Senate on Sunday approved a request by the economy minister to restrict withdrawals of deposits linked to the U.S. dollar for three years; the money would draw interest. The lower House was expected to meet later Sunday to consider final passage of the legislation.

The minister, Alejandro Atchugarry, said the proposal was the "only solution" to the crisis. It was expected that the IMF would grant approval for new assistance after the plan was approved.

The IMF this year granted Uruguay a $3 billion credit line, saying the money would help the country withstand the economic fallout from the troubles in neighboring Argentina.

The new $1.5 billion loan package was expected to include an extra $800 million in support and an acceleration in the disbursement of some of money already approved.

U.S. officials insisted that the loan was not a return to the bailouts of the Clinton years. They included support during the Asian crisis and billions of dollars in direct loans to Mexico in 1995 to help that country recover after it was forced to devalue its currency the year before.

The Bush administration has softened its hard line in recent days against large IMF aid packages, given the troubles in Latin America.

The IMF is in negotiations with Brazil over an increase in its credit line, which now totals $15 billion. Published reports have said that amount could be boosted by $10 billion to $20 billion in an effort to calm increasing worries about Brazil's ability to meet payments on its $264 billion foreign debt.

O'Neill said last week that the administration supported more assistance to Brazil and Uruguay because those countries were following the appropriate policies to deal with their economic troubles. He did include Argentina in that list.

O'Neill said authorities there needed to go further with economic reforms before the United States, the IMF's largest contributor, would feel comfortable in endorsing new IMF loans for Argentina.

[Howlin]

Actually, the poster of this thread should be the first indication.

GP, here's one.

[Texasforever]

Look, you are a well-known freeper liberal. If Bush is so damned liberal you should be in spasms of ecstasy. Stop playing both sides of the fence.

[NeoCaveman]

Well an article that starts with 'President Clinton was more conservative than President Bush' should be the first indication.

Ding. Ding. Ding. We have a winner. Terry McAullife could have written this article. How dumb do they think we are?

[Satadru]

Reagan took on the Evil Empire. Bush wants to help out the Evil Empire (China). He will not even call communism evil, as was evident in his speech in Congress. Reagan was the ultimate supply-sider who wanted to cut the size of the govt. Bush not only wants to expand it, but he thinks big govt is compassionate. If Reagan had any one chamber of Congress behind him, he would have been able to do much more.

[rintense]

Good point.

[Satadru]

Just because you don't know it, that doesn't mean that I need to try harder. Maybe that is Bush's logic, but it makes no sense.

[NeoCaveman]

If Reagan had any one chamber of Congress behind him, he would have been able to do much more.

Did not Reagan have the Senate from 1980 - 1986? True he never had the House.

[mrsmith]

"willie's special flavoring "

LOL! He's a wild man- but a treasure.
(Though this article isn't worthy of his effort IMHO)

[Texasforever]

Reagan took on the Evil Empire. Bush wants to help out the Evil Empire (China). He will not even call communism evil, as was evident in his speech in Congress. Reagan was the ultimate supply-sider who wanted to cut the size of the govt. Bush not only wants to expand it, but he thinks big govt is compassionate. If Reagan had any one chamber of Congress behind him, he would have been able to do much more.

Sort of like the "Axis of Evil"? He wanted to cut government but spent more than any previous president. He had the Senate behind him for 6 years. What did he do with it?

[watcher1]

Bump To read later

[doryfunk]

I think it is an exaggeration to say that Bush is more liberal than Clinton. Certainly Bush has had more success instituting leftist, collectivist programs, but Im sure Clinton would have liked to pass alot more, but he was stopped, because 'republicans' oppose democrat socialist programs. 'Republicans' only support socialist programs put forward by one of their own.

In reality, Republicans and Democrats are two sides of the same coin on the national level. As George Wallace said years ago, 'Theres not a dimes worth of difference between republicans and democrats.' Most republicans are RINO and most democrats are right with them. When was the last President we had that wasnt on the CFR?

Its easy to control the two parties at a national level with big money donations to support the propoganda machines of the two parties. In reality, it matters little if the democrat or republican candidate wins the race. The primary systems assure that two socialists go into the main election, and the apparent desire for the States to appeal to the masses in a false election makes the outcome self evident. We need some State legislatures to take charge and appoint electors to the electoral college with no pretense of an election of the masses, the way our system was desinged.

[Abcdefg]

Hey, I was just kidding.

[gcruse]

Yeah, I'm real happy about sending my taxes off to prop up corruption elsewhere, the steel tariffs to buy corrupt union votes, agriwelfare to corporations to grow food we don't need so we can send it to corrupt governments in Africa, and education spending to prop up corrupt teacher unions that don't educate. Only blind fools think this is conservatism.

[doryfunk]

Hear Hear

[afuturegovernor]

A read thread one time that detailed the number of moderate positions Reagan took. People were bashing Reagan and longing for "the last true Republican president" (as one poster put it): Calvin Coolidge.

I have disagreed with Bush numbers of times, but I get really tired of these hit pieces. You know the articles always put under breaking news in all caps. Shouldn't breaking news be reserved for news that is breaking from Fox News, Washington Times, ect.

[Texasforever]

Yeah, I'm real happy about sending my taxes off to prop up corruption elsewhere, the steel tariffs to buy corrupt union votes, agriwelfare to corporations to grow food we don't need so we can send it to corrupt governments in Africa, and education spending to prop up corrupt teacher unions that don't educate. Only blind fools think this is conservatism.

Give me a break.

[gcruse]

Sound like a liberal, still? 'Give me a break' means you have no defense.

[Texasforever]

These are the same idiots that blasted Reagan for the same things they are blasting Bush for. They just forget that some of us have good memories.