CATO INSTITUTE: CLINTON MORE FISCALLY CONSERVATIVE THAN BUSH

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

[lavaroise]

Excuse me if I still do not buy the Clinton Bush comparison. Clinton's impeachment and hypocrisy in the WhiteHouse are enough of a fiscal incompetence, heck, it's outright fraud and jurisdictional abuse of powers. So to lay the full blame on Bush for bills as opposed to a congress and various lobbies, it is pretty unfair.

[Wyatt's Torch]

Clinton was restrained by the Republican House.

So why hasn't Bush been restrained by a Republican House??? Face it, Bush is not even close to being a fiscal conservative. Exhibit A is that they he does not have a single supply-sider on his entire economic team. Of course, we knew all of this before the election so it shouldn't be a surprise.

[Wyatt's Torch]

So economic freedom and responsibility and principles of liberty should be ignored in times of war? Oh, I'm sorry, since I am against this I must be for the terrorists...I forgot.

[LaBelleDameSansMerci]

These findings are not surprising in the least. The Republican Party plays the role of Palace Eunuch--to the Democrat Party's Caliph.

Palace Eunuchs, pranksters all--giggling among themselves--can, occassionally, spoil some of the Caliph's grand designs.

But if, by some strange palace intrigue, they should find themselves sitting in the Caliph's throne----well---you know they are still eunuchs and therefore cannot create anything---much less a social, economic or political revolution.

So they continue the Caliph's practices, keeping the Caliph's throne warm until the new Caliph arrives and relieves them of the responsibility for which they are physically and psychologically unsuited.

Then, the Eunuch goes back to what he does best---whispering bits of gossip along the long corridors of power; flirting with the harem; playing pranks on the Caliph until that Caliph eventually dies of a stroke and the Eunuch has to nervously perch on the throne for a few years until a new Caliph arrives who can get it up.

[Guillermo]

Yep, Bush was forced to sign those bills, kicking and screaming the entire way.

[RJCogburn]

So to lay the full blame on Bush for bills as opposed to a congress and various lobbies, it is pretty unfair

He does not deserve "full blame" but he deserves a whole lot.

[lavaroise]

I'll settle for that.

[lavaroise]

Yep, Bush was forced to sign those bills, kicking and screaming the entire way.

It's called laissez faire capitalism :-) LOL!!!

[pittsburgh gop guy]

"In many ways, Bush the Second has been a tremendous disappointment to the Conservative cause. Sometimes I honestly wonder if he's any better than Gore would have been..."

Then you must be a retard.

[jjm2111]

But bush could have vetoed. Additionally, what about our cowardly backpeddling on the ICC?

[skeeter]

I believe we do better to address the arguments rather than their source.

I see nothing wrong with noting a source's ulterior motives. Something I dearly wish my party did more of.

[lavaroise]

Hell, I'm sure the terrorists love our farmers starving, but that is beyond the point. Comparing Clinton to Bush is naive to the utmost.

[hflynn]

I believe we do better to address the arguments rather than their source.

Why that's very liberal of you. It sounds almost like the Congrossional (and I do mean gross) Democrats screaming for investigations because of the seriousness of the allegations an ignoring the simple fact there is no evidence to siupport the allegations.

[ladyinred]

Do you think Reagan would have signed all that stuff into law?

From what I have read, he did sign some of these things into law and got the same grief Bush is for doing so.
President's cannot govern solely from one side of the spectrum no matter what anyone thinks. They represent the country not just one party entirely, plus there is congress to contend with.

[WyldKard]

Then you must be a retard.

Wow..what a stunning defense of the Socialist actions of your favorite President! Don't blame me because Bush is turning into such a Big Government tool...

[RJCogburn]

President's cannot govern solely from one side of the spectrum no matter what anyone thinks

True enough. But while we can understand the motivation, we also ought to be willing to clearly say that what he signed was a bad idea. Otherwise, how can we ever hope to lessen the number of bad ideas that get passed?

I'll say it. These were bad ideas. They had been better not signed. How about you?

[RJCogburn]

Why that's very liberal of you.

Thanks...I'll take that as meant in the older defintion of "liberal".

[Mr. Mojo]

Do you think Reagan would have signed all that stuff into law?

No, I don't.

[Wyatt's Torch]

Okay - tell me where Bush is more conservative fiscally than Clinton based solely on what they signed? Removing Clinton from the equation, how is Bush an economic conservative at all?

[Mr. Mojo]

When I read the headline I thought, "Yeah, but we're in a war right now and that means more spending,"

It should mean more military spending, not spending on education, prescription drugs, and mental health care.