Quote:
Originally posted by sgtclub
Kerry is not a New Democrat. He is a liberal Democrat that is more fiscally conservative than the Democrats from the 60s and 70s, but that is just a matter of degrees. Fundamentally, he still believes that government, rather than the individual, is still the primary fix for societies ills, and as long as he holds this view, he is going to need public money to support it.
|
Both candidates are big enthusiasts of using government to cure social ills and both are not afraid of using public money to do it.
Kerry wants to take a slightly less aggressive approach to dealing with terrorism, in terms of his willingness to use war as a preemptive tool. However, he wants to use the government and public fisc to help provide a better health care and employment structure.
Bush, on the other hand is a great adventurer, willing to use troops to impose order on an unruly world. He is also willing to use the Justice department and law enforcement to wield a big stick at home. He is not quite as cognizant as others of the cost of this strategy, but sooner or later, it's going to require
someone to drop a bunch of federal money.
Kerry recognizes that his plans are going to cost and he is proposing rolling back tax breaks for the wealthiest 1% of Americans to pay for it. It's an open question whether or not the funds will be adequate, but at least he would start to pay for his ambition.
Bush, on the other hand, is in a wonderland. He appears to actually believe he can spend billions of dollars to be the Big Kahuna and call the tune globally and give out tax breaks that favor his donor base more highly thaan the rest of America at the same time.
The issue isn't really one of who is more "liberal" on taxes or spending, but who is the greater pragmatist.
