And we wrap up with some comments from General Wesley Clark, from a speech given October 22, 2003.
"George W. Bush told America we really could have it all: massive tax cuts for the wealthiest people; lots of spending on education; Social Security, saved for another generation; and big budget surpluses as far as the eye could see.
FDR ran on the New Deal. Harry Truman promised a Fair Deal.
George W. Bush ran on the Free Lunch.
The Free Lunch, it turns out, was a bunch of baloney.
That's what Mr. Bush campaigned on-the free lunch. He told Americans we could have everything he promised, and his administration would still run a surplus. In 1999, when Mr. Bush started running for President, he said, and I quote, "We can show Washington how to handle a budget surplus."
Unfortunately, that's one promise he kept. Just like he said he would, President Bush has frittered away the greatest budget surplus in American history.
But there were other promises Mr. Bush didn't keep. When he took office, it became clear he didn't have any plans for paying down the national debt; he didn't have any plans for saving Social Security; and he didn't have any plans to pay for his education program.
All he had was his massive tax cut. Three of them, actually. One after the other, each benefiting most those who didn't need it - the wealthiest Americans."
Some of you maybe concerned at the negative tone of these comments. I can appreciate your sentiments; however, I felt it was important to underline that Tax Cuts are seen as positive in America. Being against Tax Cuts is a bit like being against free Ice Cream. Any Democrat who takes power will have to raise taxes somehow (hopefully by cutting off some corporate loopholes, but I'm a crazy dreamer). Whoever we get in office needs to articulate why the Bush Tax Cuts are negative.
And to counterbalance this negative, possibly tomorrow but more likely on Friday we will look at the revenue generating parts of the candidates economic plans.
No comments:
Post a Comment