Scott McClellen- "Bush is a Fiscal Conservative"
 

Scott McClellen, White House Press Secratary, today said President Bush is a 'Fiscal Conservative.' Even more so than Reagan, and possibly in the last 100 years.

Could one of you Bushies Please Explain How Is Bush a Fiscal Conservative? I am at a loss for words after hearing this....

Because he says he is.

(I know, I'm not a Bushie, but there you have it).

Tax Cuts for the Wealthy (To Stimulate the economy ;) so far the only 'stimulation' is a bunch of CEO's Golf games ) 200 Billion in Iraq (So Far) 200 Billion on Katrina, over 1 TRILLION in Debt when we had surplus just five years ago, growing at an astounding rate. No new taxes to pay for anything, and now thay call him a 'Fiscal Conservative'... Doesn't this worry anyone?

Is Reality that far out of whack??

First of all, Bush is no fiscal conservative, and I suppose you would refer to me as a "Bushie".

Tax cuts have stimulated the economy. Always have, always will. The Reagan years are the perfect example of this. They also brought us out of the economic downturn that started 9 months or so prior to Bush taking office in 2001.

The deficit problem is one of spending, not of taxation. Cutting income taxes does little to affect the wealthy. They have their wealth sheltered and structured in ways as to pay the smallest amount of taes possible. The problem isn't the rate of taxation. The problem is the tax code, and if you want to rewrite it, I'm with you. Messing with income tax rates only affects that that are attempting to acquire wealth, not those that have it already.

Looking at the deficit as a percentage of GDP, as most economists do, it is well below what it has been historically.

It has been shown that the so-called surplus was from accounting tricks commonly used to make a bottom line look better. I can try to find appropriate links if anyone cares to see them. Also, they were "projected surpluses", and nothing real had yet materialized. I can "project" anything I like.

You know who income taxes REALLY hurt? High income earners, not the wealthy (yes, there's a difference) People like doctors and lawyers who spent years in very expensive schooling to get where they are and who have to go to work every day to make the money they do... THAT's who it hurts.

The wealthy? They're investors. The last thing you wanna do is hurt investors (talk about a way to cause a recession!) But if your politicians can fool you into thinking they're "sticking it to the rich guy" by hurting high income-earners, then apparently that's enough to get your vote, which is all they care about. All you're really doing is perpetuating the gap between the rich and poor. Every time you try to "hurt" the rich, you're really hurting the guy in the middle or the guy on his way up, who don't have the money for the fancy accountants and other advisors to help him get all the cuts he deserves. All you're doing is making it harder for anyone else to get rich.

And I really don't believe anyone who spends the way Bush does is a fiscal conservative.

If he would just veto something! The pork in the highway bill, farm bill, etc etc!!!

Say NOOOOO to the spending!

Follow this line of logic:

If it is true that the Republicans get their support from the rich then it would follow that it would be in their best interest for the country to be comprised of as many rich people as possible.....

If it is true that the Dems get their support from the little guy then it would follow that it would be in their best interest for the country to be comprised of as many little guys as possible.....

One can claim to be a Fiscal Conservative but that does not mean one has to actually ACT like a Fiscal Conservative.

But, it sounds nice - especially with the Regan reference thrown in.

Shouldn't this be in the Orwellian double-speak thread?

Maybe we need an entire forum devoted to Orwellian Double-Speak?