Replies to post #16161 on Zeev's Turnips Talk Politics (ZTTP)

[sarals]

Does Bush favor his "rich and powerful" backers any more than clinton did?? Hardly - at least he does not use the Lincoln bedroom as a Motel 6 and take money for pardons, yet I have heard no outcry from you about clinton. Why?? - I suspect because many of clinton's policies agree with your personal ideology.

The thing with Clinton was personal IMO, although I didn't like that he later lied about it, that was worse than the act. But I'd rather have that than a president in bed with the likes of Enron and Halliburton.

Actually, I'd prefer to compare Bush with Teddy Roosevelt. Teddy was a Republican and a conservative also and I hirely admire the man, for his principles and his ability to fight for what was right regardless of any special interest. He was a man that was not owned by anyone. He promoted environmental issues, handled foreign affairs with finess, yet promoted a strong America. There was a great President.

[ergo sum]

Mlsoft

I t seems pretty clear that bankrupting the government is the point. It is a simple policy that says we need less government so why not bankrupt the treasury. Bush looks great as he fights his wars and throws 15 B at aids but the present and future deficits will undermine the government in the end. This is the Neo Reaganites at work. Best way to facilitate States rights is to strip the Federal Government of its ability to pay.

As much as they would like to blame him for all their problem Bill Clinton is not and has not been for quite a while the President. War and patriotism and tax cuts can only go so far. The real irony is that Volker was appointed by Carter and Greenspan was appointed by Reagan.

Ergo Sum