What's the Magician's Other Hand Doing While we're All Watching the War?

Undertoad · 04-02-2003, 12:48 PM

Clinton did several things that improved the economy and extended the boom.

- He did not enact a large tax increase.
- He did not enact a large spending increase.
- He led the passage of NAFTA.
- He led the passage of welfare reform.

Adam's idea that you need to elect a tax -n- spend libbrul to improve the economy is spot-on. The reason is that only a tax -n- spend libbrul is politically incapable of taxing and spending. Clinton tried it in his first year, wanting to federalize health care, but the voters gave him a harsh smack in return in 1994 by electing a Republican House. Similarly, only Bush 41 could increase the size of government the way he did, spending like the wind, something 43 looks to duplicate for some unknown reason.

Thus, electing a big-gov D may be the only way to guarantee that the next administration truly cuts spending. Bush 41 could never have gotten NAFTA or welfare reform through. On the other hand, only a Republican can end the drug war. Strange, isn't it?

04-02-2003, 12:48 PM	#21
Undertoad Radical Centrist Join Date: Jan 2001 Location: Cottage of Prussia Posts: 31,423	Clinton did several things that improved the economy and extended the boom. - He did not enact a large tax increase. - He did not enact a large spending increase. - He led the passage of NAFTA. - He led the passage of welfare reform. Adam's idea that you need to elect a tax -n- spend libbrul to improve the economy is spot-on. The reason is that only a tax -n- spend libbrul is politically incapable of taxing and spending. Clinton tried it in his first year, wanting to federalize health care, but the voters gave him a harsh smack in return in 1994 by electing a Republican House. Similarly, only Bush 41 could increase the size of government the way he did, spending like the wind, something 43 looks to duplicate for some unknown reason. Thus, electing a big-gov D may be the only way to guarantee that the next administration truly cuts spending. Bush 41 could never have gotten NAFTA or welfare reform through. On the other hand, only a Republican can end the drug war. Strange, isn't it?

Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests)