CATO INSTITUTE: CLINTON MORE FISCALLY CONSERVATIVE THAN BUSH

The Cato Institute ^ | August 8th, 2002 | Veronique de Rugy

[Marie Antoinette]

Yeah, I guess you guys are all correct after all. I think Bush is LIBERAL after all. He wrote all those bills himself and didn't veto anything 'cause he's a LIBERAL.

Clinton fixed all financial woes by raising taxes retro actively and on Social security payments to retirees. Let's all just vote Democrat next time around 'cause Bush isn't conservative enough for everybody here. In fact, why bother to vote at all? Let's just be apathetic hand-wringing conservatives with no clear choice on election day and stay home.

Is that the plan? Am I with you guys? Should I have voted for Gore, or what?

Marie Antoinette's astonished husband.

[plain talk]

Neither do you.

[ForOurFuture]

Hello??? Only Congress can spend $

Hello??? Only the President can sign bills that spend $.

[SupplySider]

"...he gave us the largest tax cut in decades."

Unfortunately, that piddling focus group tax cut is the largest in decades only next to the massive (and nearly identical) tax increases of his father and Clinton. I guess he didn't go with Reagan style cuts because because he had to differentiate himself from Steve Forbes. Or maybe he actually bought the Demo talking point about "fiscal responsibility", aka don't let the taxpayers keep too much.

Bush will now take the blame for the bad economy caused by compromising with Democratic principles, just as his dad did. Maybe if Gore would have been elected, we could have had a real economic conservative in the next cycle. Of course with Gore, we might not have been around for another election cycle.

God bless you Pres. Reagan, I wish you were with us still...

[listenhillary]

Hey check this out. Dimo's have a radically different view of Bush's spending.

http://www.democrats.org/pdfs/budget2002/mo.pdf

[kayak]

"When I began entering into the give and take of legislative bargaining in Sacramento, a lot of the most radical conservatives who had supported me during the election didn't like it. "Compromise" was a dirty word to them and they wouldn't face the fact that we couldn't get all of what we wanted today. They wanted all or nothing and they wanted it all at once. If you don't get it all, some said, don't take anything. "I'd learned while negotiating union contracts that you seldom got everything you asked for. And I agreed with FDR, who said in 1933: 'I have no expectations of making a hit every time I come to bat. What I seek is the highest possible batting average.'

"If you got seventy-five or eighty percent of what you were asking for, I say, you take it and fight for the rest later, and that's what I told these radical conservatives who never got used to it.

~~ Ronald Reagan, in his autobiography, An American Life

[FITZ]

I wish we could find another Reagan.

[Keyes For President]

"If you got seventy-five or eighty percent of what you were asking for, I say, you take it and fight for the rest later

Ronald Reagan moved the country toward the right incrementally.

He asked for tax cuts, military increases, and social spending cuts, even though moderates and liberals called it "Voodoo Economics." He had to settle for a percentage of what he wanted--he got most of the income tax cuts he asked for and the military increases--but he didn't get the social spending cuts. But he continued to fight for the rest.

[SupplySider]

Great quote, thank you. I love Reagan quotes even if they are being used against me in a discussion :)

If Pres. Bush was getting seventy-five or eighty percent of what Reagan asked for, I would be ecstatic. It's just that what he is asking for is not enough to encourage long term economic growth. I'll take any tax cut, but those vouchers were lame.

I do believe that, unfortunately, when it comes to economics Pres. Bush is similar to his father. He seems mainly interested in "governing", not reforming. Sadly, even if O'Neil goes, I predict he will be replaced by another corporate country club Republican, not anyone like the supply siders Reagan surrouned himself with.

[SupplySider]

Sorry, I meant the rebates, not vouchers.

[SEGUET]

"Bush didn't write any of these spending bills, did he?"

He did sign them though - they like to leave the task of putting intelligent sentences together to someone else.

[SEGUET]

"Did Clinton inherit a mess after BUsh?"

yea

[SEGUET]

"Can he spell V - E - T - O ?"

No - and neither can he.

[SupplySider]

Did Clinton inherit a mess after BUsh?" yea

Then Clinton replicated the Bush economic policies almost to the letter. It was not "The Reagan/Bush years" and "The Clinton years". It was the Reagan years, and the Bush/Clinton years.

[SEGUET]

"....but that is beyond the point. Comparing Clinton to Bush is naive to the utmost."

Then why do you people in this Kool-Aid line continually compare the two - no one gives a crap - it is obviously a method of reaffirming your confirmation of the obvious good nd evil -

and I luv the daily references on this site about "when" Hillary Clinton becomes president - she might or she might not but the neocon's do not have the power to affect that event one way or the other - too much defeatist talk in this Kool-Aid line.

[BluesDuke]

Bush didn't write any of these spending bills, did he?

No, but he seems too often to have forgotten about the veto pen. Not to mention, having wielded it, making it good and plain why said bills deserved to be vetoed and let it be on the gutless wonders' heads.

The road to Damnocratic hell is paved with Republican't good intentions.

[SEGUET]

""Ron Paul in 2004" "

Don't you mean Rue Paul?

[fogarty]

You forget our point. Just because Bush is better than Gore does not mean Bush is the ideal conservative that would bring us back to a Constitutional-based government, which would be wise stewards with taxpayer money. In short, we want him to live up to his very own words when he said when he espoused the belief that the American people are better stewards of the money than the government was.

Is it too much to ask for an honest Republican?

And no, I don't suggest giving up. Not ever. But if Bush proves to be the slow road to the same HELL that Clinton was leading us, it is STUPID to continue voting for him. There are alternatives - and leaders to support who actually give a damn about the Constitution.

[kayak]

One thing to keep in mind ...... we are looking back on 8 years of a Reagan presidency. Bush has been in office less than 2 years, has had a hostile Senate with which to contend, has had the terrorist attacks and the war to deal with, inherited a mild recession, has had these corporate scandals come to light (more legacy of x42?) ...... and he's still accomplished a lot. Not all that we want ..... and I'm sure not all that he had hoped for. But it is not realistic to expect him to have as much to show for after 19 months as Reagan had after 8 years.

As for the tax cut, the rebates were just the beginning. If you'll look back at your pay stubs from last year, there was a tax cut effective in June of 2001. I'm an employer and I could tell the difference in our employees' pay checks as well as my own .... and many of our employees work part-time for us as a second job so they're not exactly in "the wealthiest 1%." It wasn't huge ..... but that was just the first increment.

And, btw, thanks for the civil debate ...... it's a rare thing on FR these days unfortunately ..... and quite worthwhile.

[lavaroise]

"Did Clinton inherit a mess after BUsh?"

yea

I was not talking to you.