Quote:
Originally posted by Agamemnon+Oct 13 2004, 02:17 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Agamemnon @ Oct 13 2004, 02:17 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin-CaramonLS@Oct 13 2004, 09:04 PM
How is not addresing the economy a good move for their base? A good economy keeps a lot of people happy.
Look at the last 4 presidents... only 1 of them was able to run a Budget surplus and that was Clinton. Reagan, Bush1, Bush2 spent this economy into the freaken ground, look at the starwars system (No it didn't end the cold war) a crazy waste of money. Absolutely inhuman amounts of money to other military projects, you name it.
Repubilicans have not been fiscally responsable for a while now.
|
Adressing the economy? That's a whole different ball of wax than the deficit/debt specifically. The 'economy' includes job creation, tax rates, tariffs, interest rates, inflation, etc. It would be stupid to run for President without talking about the economy.
What I'm implying is that there are preconceptions about Republicans and Democrats. Republicans favour small government, low taxes, etc. Democrats are for expanding social programs, raising taxes (or at least, not reducing them), big government, that sort of stuff.
My original premise was that it was unfortunate that Kerry's (for the purposes of winning the election) party isn't known for 'fiscal responsibility'. That does not equal 'the economy'. A fiscally conservative party could clean up in this election. However, both sides are promising to spend away the future, so there's little difference.
Hope that clears it up. [/b][/quote]
i will be voting for the other fiscally conservative party, the Libertarians. Their candidate, badnarik, is on 48 of the states' ballots i believe, but unfortunately most people are unaware of the alternative choices.
http://www.lp.org