Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Usually Lurkin
I think it's safe to say that GWBush is very conservative on many social issues and on tax issues, very right on issues of military strength...
|
And this sort of thing is where I think the debate has been framed in such a way that "right" and "left" are defined in terms of "right of way the hell to the left" and "left of way the hell to the left".
on taxes, I very distinctly remember hearing Comrade Bush say that the top income tax rate should be "no greater than 33%, on principle!!!", with the clear implication (and by his subsequent actions) that up to 33% is well within his principle--comfort zone. It's an odd principle, 33%....Jehovah never demanded more than 10%, and I'm just not sure how one arrives at such a principle, but at any rate the debate over tax rates is framed between those who think it ought to be 33% and those who think it ought to be 40 or 50 or whatever....
(10%, anyone.....2%....0%)
at most, Bush is a "supply-sider", and the debate between supply-siders on one side and the whatever-ists on the other side of the aisle is a debate over what top marginal tax rate maximizes revenue to the federal government. (ba dum bum)
on military strength....Nikita Kruschev and Leonid Brezhnev were big on military strength, as have been virtually all socialist dictators, as were quintessentially liberal US presidents Wilson, FDR, and LBJ. So Bush's answer to how much should we spend is "more, more, more" on most government programs, and the military isn't any different.
and social issues....sure, that's where the cowboy boot wearing propaganda comes in.
anyhoo.....the terms "left" and "right" can only describe so much, but I think the most basic fact is that the US Federal Government was the largest government institution in the history of mankindwhen George W. Bush took over -- after eight years of Bush it is much bigger. Any analysis or critique of Bush and Co has to begin by recognizing this fact, left, right or whatever.