Remember-Bush has a constituency. He has many masters to keep happy. I bolded your points and i will address each one.

1. Would a Socialist offer a tax cut that overwhelmingly benefitted the wealthy?

A. No. But...a conservative would follow those tax cuts with budget cuts. In the first five years of office, Bush increased the deficit by 1.5 trillion. NOT taking into account Defense and homeland security, the Bush administration saw over the largest spending increase in US history. Socialist?

2. Would a socialist advocate state based control of the energy system and replace it with a privatized system?

A. No. Again, though, the devil is in the details. He wanted to use federal dollars to create, modernize and expand the energy system. Socialist?

3. Would a socialist take apart the state controlled social security system and privatize it?

A. No. But...read the plan. It would basically turn social security into a Thrift Savings Plan with a Central administrator that would invest the money for the GROUP. Now is that socialist? Here is the link to the whitehouse proposal:

http://www.whitehouse.gov/infocus/so...alsecurity.pdf

Fannie and Freddie's guarantees were strictly implied. You said "the were never really private" which wasnt the case. A government SEIZING a private company and propping it up with tax payer money is Socialist in nature. That was my point.

There is no academic that would deny that many of Bush's policies were indeed socialist in nature. The only debate would be about the degree...no pun intended.

Well actually, that isn't true.
I do.
:D


As for your point about a true conservtive coupling tax cuts with budget cuts....that's true. But I don't think the world is made up of people that are either conservatives or socialists.
I think that saying many of Bush's policies are deeply influenced by welfare-state liberal theory is certainly accurate. But I don't think that makes him a socialist.

[quote=miraja2]Well actually, that isn't true.
I do.
:D


As for your point about a true conservtive coupling tax cuts with budget cuts....that's true. But I don't think the world is made up of people that are either conservatives or socialists.
I think that saying many of Bush's policies are deeply influenced by welfare-state liberal theory is certainly accurate. But I don't think that makes him a socialist.[/QUOTE

The bolded is a fancy way of saying socialism.

I certainly don't think Bush is a classic socialist. He is more of a "corporate socialist".

Then again, here we are going back and forth trying to explain an administriation that appears to have no rhyme nor reason.

Its been fun.

late last night, i was reading an article-perhaps on msnbc, i don't remember-about mccain and obama, and factcheck was mentioned. i had never really seen or heard of the site til dala brought it up. at any rate, they said it was either non- or bi-partisan, and that both sides had been found by it to be less than truthful. ah, that's right-the article i was reading was about mccain and what he was saying about palins earmarks. at any right, i decided to go to factcheck.....interesting stuff.
now, i try very hard not to post things unless i feel pretty confident it's correct. also try not to argue a point unless i have those same feelings, so when i put up here that obama said he wasn't going to adjust cap gains depending on the economy--well, i knew it was correct. and that whole episode in here got pretty ugly. but i was right, he said that. at any rate....

when i ask questions, i like answers-as i am really searching for the truth. i have to say nothing bothers me more than platitudes, talking points, etc. i find people will do a better job informing me if they stick to facts, sometimes the same facts they say they aren't seeing from 'the other side'. forgive me if i'm getting tedious, i know this is getting long in a hurry. but some things i found on fact check i feel should be brought up-and yes, these that follow are from that site, i recommend it now that i know it's not from either side, but from a group who checks both.

it was said obama would cut taxes in 95% of households. not quite--"Overall, the TPC found that Obama’s plan would produce a tax cut for 81.3 percent of all households, and a cut for 95.5 percent of all households with children."
and yeah, obamas plan would cut more taxes than mccains.
the thing i saw that resonated most however--neither candidate will cut deficit spending, it will increase under BOTH candidates.
http://www.factcheck.org/elections-2...d_pattern.html

there's the link to the particular article about some mccain ads, and their truthfulness. it contains the rest about both tax plans, and the fact that neither is making any attempt to slash our deficit or balance the budget.

so, if you think either one is a proponent of change, neither is. and to be honest, imo i would rather keep the current taxes, not lower them more, and pay down some of the debt, and get the govt off their deficit budgeting. i would also like to see both candidates say no more spending until they work towards doing that.

oh, and by the way retirees, your taxes would increase under obama-not so sure on mccains plan. "We'd also note that retirees would fare quite a bit less well than working families under Obama's tax plan: The TPC estimates that 32 percent of households with a person over age 65 would see a tax increase."

http://www.factcheck.org/elections-2...ing_obama.html

anyway, i recommend going to the site, altho i don't know in the end if anything will become clearer for anyone-both sides get taken to task, both sides engage in stretching the truth, and seemingly neither side is really interested in change-at least not where we're headed tax and spend wise!

here's another example of how neither man will bring about change as far as bi-partisanship vs party line voting:

"Obama painted McCain as a Republican partisan who's supported the unpopular President Bush consistently:

Obama: And next week, we'll also hear about those occasions when he's broken with his party as evidence that he can deliver the change that we need. But the record's clear: John McCain has voted with George Bush 90 percent of the time.

It's true that McCain's voting support for Bush policies has averaged slightly above 89 percent since Bush took office, according to Congressional Quarterly’s vote studies. But it has ebbed and flowed. It reached a low of 77 percent in 2005. Last year it was 95 percent. By comparison, Obama's own record of supporting Bush policies has averaged slightly under 41 percent since the senator took office. However, Obama's voting record is no less partisan than McCain's. He has voted in line with his party an average of nearly 97 percent of the time. The truth is that neither candidate can claim a strong record of "breaking with his party" if Senate votes are the measure."

Factcheck is great isnt it? They all lie. I was in chat with sniper one evening and I was questioning Obama (basically, takiing a similar position as you have right now) and his tax policy and Sniper kept saying "go to fact check".

Anyways you could spend an evening laughing about all of the misreps and flip flops.

On another note, did you watch the excerpts from McCain on The View? They showed a clip of him coming back from Viet Nam. Wow- what a handsome man he was. Very nice looking. Anyway, its an interesting watch. Its a shame he has to sell out so much for the election.

i wouldn't watch the view if someone else loaned me their eyes and ears so mine could be spared.
i did find it interesting that it was only in the last year that mccain voted more along party lines than in years' past. he may be many things, but stupid isn't one of them-he knew he had to appeal more to the further right in the party if he was to have hope of a nomination. it was those people who cost him eight years ago vs bush--and i really feel we'd have been better off then had mccain got the nom than the eventual winner. certainly if an R can piss off the likes of rush limbaugh (who at one point supposedly encouraged conservatives to vote for hillary instead), then i suppose mccain can't be 'all bad'.
i remember when obama and hillary were duking it out, everyone said they were incredibly similar where they stood-after looking over the tax plans of the two opponents, it seems imo that obama and mccain aren't far apart either. i don't like either plan after looking at that site-neither makes ANY effort at solving our deficit problem.

for those that didnt see SNL last night.

Too funny. Tina Fay IS Sarah Palin.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QnRUKIMegn8

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/09/14/us...&ex=1221624000

Interesting ny times article